Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском A series of rapid domestic political changes in Lebanon has disrupted the established balance of power, creating a foundation for a reassessment of the positions of key players. Amid a pause in regional escalation, the debate on the decline of Hezbollah’s influence — long the dominant military and political force in the country, has become a topic in numerous publications. However, there is no consensus on the group's future: some experts predict its complete disappearance, while others, on the contrary, believe that the current conditions will serve as a catalyst for its restructuring. A sober view of what Hezbollah represents today seems more important than ever. Since the election of Joseph Aoun as President of Lebanon and the subsequent appointment of Nawaf Salam as Prime Minister, Lebanese politics has continued to undergo changes that are shaping its new landscape. The intensification of diplomatic contacts, escalating tensions in the border region, and unexpected administrative decisions — all these factors reflect the search for a renewed equilibrium that aligns with contemporary realities. Weakened by war and political shifts, Hezbollah finds itself at the center of these transformational processes. Hezbollah's Pyrrhic Victory With the end of active military operations in November 2024, the question arose regarding the extent of the damage suffered by the Shiite group. Despite all the statements by the organization's Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, about a "great victory" over the Zionist enemy, the pathos of his rhetoric is significantly devalued when confronted with the stark reality. In fact, the transition of Hezbollah’s current leader to this position from his long-held role as Deputy Secretary-General — a position he occupied for over 30 years under Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah — is directly linked to a key consequence of the war: significant losses within the organization’s ranks. One of the most devastating blows to the group was the physical elimination of the majority of its leadership. Since Hezbollah’s involvement in supporting Hamas's "Al-Aqsa Flood" operation, key figures within the organization have been consistently targeted and killed. Among them were prominent Radwan Unit commander Wissam Tawil, the heads of the Nasr and Aziz special units Talib Abdallah and Mohammed Nasser, as well as the overseer of Hezbollah’s rocket program and chief military advisor to the Secretary-General, Fuad Shukr. Additionally, Ibrahim Aqil, a member of the Jihad Council, Hezbollah’s main military body, was also eliminated. The most shocking event, however, was the death of Hezbollah's longtime leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, following an Israeli strike on Dahiyeh, the southern suburb of Beirut. The attack also claimed the lives of another Jihad Council member, Ali Karaki, and General Abbas Nilforoushan, a commander of Iran’s Quds Force. Hezbollah supporters would likely have reacted with even greater dismay to the elimination of Hashem Safi al-Din, the head of the group's Executive Council [1]. This is because the Shura Council, Hezbollah's main administrative body, is required to elect two Secretary-Generals every three years — one acting and the other "reserve". This procedure was established in the 1990s after the assassination of Hezbollah’s second leader, Abbas Musawi, to prevent internal discord and confusion in the event of a sudden elimination of the Secretary-General. Hashem Safi al-Din was precisely such a designated successor, yet due to his untimely death, he never had the opportunity to enact this contingency mechanism. The losses suffered by the Shiite group, of course, were not limited to its senior command. Before the launch of Israel’s Operation Northern Arrows, the number of Hezbollah casualties among rank-and-file members was estimated at around 400–500 fighters. However, by the end of the Third Lebanon War, Arab and Israeli sources reported that this number had risen to 3,000–4,000, accounting for approximately 6–8% of the organization's 50,000-strong force (as estimated by the U.S. Congress). This figure does not even include a significant number of non-fatal combat casualties — those wounded and rendered incapable of further service. It is also important to note that the number of casualties continues to rise even after the ceasefire agreement came into effect, as Israel’s interpretation of the agreement grants it "full military freedom of action" against Hezbollah. The Israeli military continues to carry out air and missile strikes on any targets suspected of harboring Hezbollah members or being linked to the group. By the end of December 2024, the number of ceasefire violations had already exceeded 300 cases. The "Blue Helmets" (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL) peacekeeping mission in Lebanon has expressed concern over Israel’s actions. Another crucial aspect of Hezbollah’s post-war situation is the state of its missile arsenal, which posed the primary threat to Israel. As of March 2024, the group was estimated to possess between 100,000 and 200,000 missiles, the majority of which were short-range rockets. According to U.S. and Israeli assessments, Hezbollah’s remaining arsenal now constitutes between 20% and 50% of its pre-war stockpile. However, independent analysts tend to agree only with the upper limit of this estimate. Thus, it becomes almost indisputable that the events of the Third Lebanon War have dealt a significant blow to Hezbollah. The hopes of its supporters for a swift and miraculous recovery are unlikely to materialize. Given the deteriorating geopolitical environment and growing internal pressure on Hezbollah within Lebanon, it remains unclear where the organization will find the resources for its restoration. At the same time, it would be premature to write off the Shiite group entirely. Even Israeli media acknowledge this, publishing bold headlines stating that Hezbollah has not been defeated. The most valuable asset of any political organization is its people, and in this regard, Hezbollah still holds strong advantages. Among objective Lebanese analysts, there is a consensus that support for Hezbollah within the Shiite community remains consistently high. Some even argue that its position has strengthened. Faced with widespread dissatisfaction with the group outside its sectarian base and increasing external pressure on Lebanon, Shiites fear becoming scapegoats. The fear of collective punishment is pushing them to rally around their traditional leadership, as they recognize that they are all in the same boat. Today, the ball is in Hezbollah’s court. The group must act with the utmost responsibility and precision to justify the trust of its supporters. A key focus of this strategy will be its cooperation with the new government, where Hezbollah and its allies, notably, still hold a significant position. The New Cabinet: Remembering Siniora or Bring Back My 2005 On Saturday, February 8, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam announced the completion of the formation of a new national government, calling it a "government of reform and salvation". The process took 26 days, which, for the country's political history in the 21st century, is almost a record. The only time a cabinet was formed faster was in 2005, when Prime Minister Fouad Siniora assembled his government in 19 days amid nationwide mobilization following the Cedar Revolution [2]. This rapid pace is, in fact, a testament to the critical state of Lebanon, whose governmental and bureaucratic system only begins to "wheeze into action" when it is just steps away from plunging into the abyss. The cabinet has been deliberately composed of 24 figures who are formally unaffiliated with political parties [3] and do not intend to participate in future elections. According to the prime minister's vision, this approach is meant to reduce political friction within the government and ensure its effective functioning. Instead of engaging in Lebanon’s traditional positional party politics, ministers are expected to focus solely on their respective portfolios. However, the consultation process between the prime minister and political forces somewhat dilutes the effectiveness of this strategy. Powerful parties still have a significant influence over appointments due to the requirement for parliamentary approval of the cabinet. Nevertheless, the composition of the new government has been strongly influenced by the personal vision of reform-minded President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam — an unusual situation for Lebanon. Ten ministerial candidates were directly nominated by this top-level tandem, while another twelve were backed by political forces [4]. Despite widespread predictions of doom, the Hezbollah-Amal duo — often referred to as the "Shiite duo" — secured four trusted representatives in the government, two from each organization. Another Shiite quota, assigned to the Minister of State for Administrative Development, became a compromise between the Prime Minister and Speaker Nabih Berri, the leader of Amal. However, in the final assessment, this was still framed as a "non-partisan" appointment made on behalf of the head of government. Thus, the configuration of Shiite ministers in the new cabinet clearly demonstrated the practical inevitability of Hezbollah and Amal’s continued influence. The political weight of the "Shiite duo" simply did not allow the Prime Minister to significantly limit their representation in the highest executive body, even though it seems that Nawaf Salam himself is at least somewhat interested in weakening Hezbollah and Amal’s positions. Furthermore, Amal managed to retain its long-standing monopoly over the Ministry of Finance, which was given to former MP Yassine Jaber, a member of the movement. This appointment was preceded by intense speculation, as the Finance Minister holds the second most powerful position in government after the Prime Minister. Any governmental decision that requires budgetary allocations must be signed off by the Finance Minister, meaning that the lack of approval could effectively block any government initiative. Although Jaber was quick to assure that he would not abuse his position, it is clear that President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam, who are oriented toward the West and the Gulf monarchies, are unlikely to be pleased that a key tool for obstructing government operations remains in the hands of figures close to pro-Iranian Hezbollah. At the same time, it appears that in exchange for this “veto” power, another mechanism of obstruction for the Shiite duo has been neutralized — the current cabinet includes a Shiite minister who is not directly dependent on the will of Hezbollah and Amal. This means that if the four representatives of the duo decide to withdraw from the government in an attempt to delegitimize it, the Minister of State for Administrative Development, Fadi Makki, will remain in office. As a result, the argument about the lack of Shiite representation — and therefore the alleged illegitimacy of the cabinet — would become irrelevant. This move by the country’s leadership was not merely a symbolic concession — it is rooted in historical precedents. During the tenure of Fouad Siniora’s government (2005–2009), Hezbollah and Amal effectively withdrew [5] all five Shiite ministers from the cabinet, arguing that the government had become unrepresentative due to the absence of Shiite figures. At that time, Hezbollah and its allies demanded the formation of a national unity government in which the opposition — meaning themselves — would hold a so-called "blocking third". Government decisions in Lebanon require a two-thirds majority, meaning that a political force controlling at least one-third of the cabinet plus one minister has the power to veto decisions and, if necessary, bring down the government. The crisis peaked in 2008, leading to violent clashes between Hezbollah and pro-government forces, which resulted in over 100 casualties. The conflict was eventually resolved, but it remains a cautionary precedent in Lebanese politics. Since then, and until the formation of the current cabinet, every Lebanese government has had one political alliance that held the coveted "blocking third", effectively giving it the ability to stall the cabinet's work. This dynamic is precisely why Lebanon has experienced four governmental crises since 2009. Against this backdrop, Nawaf Salam’s decision to eliminate this risk in the new cabinet appears prudent, as it significantly reduces the chances of yet another executive power collapse. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance remains a trump card in the hands of Nabih Berri, a highly skilled political tactician. It will only be played if the stakes become too high and the current political arrangement starts leading toward defeat. The Shiite duo is not in a position to oppose the government without cause, but it still has the leverage to defend its core interests when necessary. At the same time, the Shiite duo’s main domestic political opponents — the Lebanese Forces (LF) and Kataeb Party — secured a total of five ministerial portfolios. Additionally, two seats in the government went to candidates from the traditionally Druze Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), which has a long history of political maneuvering in pursuit of the best outcome for its community. Its de facto leader, Walid Jumblatt, has alternated between criticizing Hezbollah and aligning with it, depending on the political climate. Another ministerial position was assigned to Noura Bayrakdarian, a representative of the Lebanese branch of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) "Dashnaktsutyun". The Dashnaks have long been junior partners in the March 8 Alliance [6] and have maintained close ties with the Christian Free Patriotic Movement (FPM). Notably, for the first time in two decades, the FPM failed to secure a single cabinet appointment — a situation last seen during Fouad Siniora’s government. A particularly symbolic shift occurred with the Ministry of Energy, a traditional stronghold of the FPM, which was handed over to the Lebanese Forces (LF). The decoupling of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) from Hezbollah, which we previously discussed, largely predetermined the Shiite bloc’s isolation in the new government — this is the first time they are in the cabinet without a strong Christian ally (the Marada Movement has also been left "overboard"). Following the cabinet’s approval, FPM leader Gebran Bassil expressed willingness to work constructively in opposition, yet at the same time, he voiced serious dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister’s actions. According to Bassil, Nawaf Salam granted greater influence over the cabinet’s composition to Shiite and Druze forces, at the expense of Christian and Sunni interests. His discontent over FPM’s exclusion from the government was further evident during the parliamentary confidence vote. During the session, Gebran Bassil accused the Prime Minister of reneging on commitments made during consultations over his appointment. As a result, the FPM faction refused to support a vote of confidence in Nawaf Salam’s government, stating that the Prime Minister "did not deserve it". However, the parliamentary confidence vote left Gebran Bassil and his Strong Lebanon bloc in the minority. The ministerial statement delivered by the Prime Minister focused on the same priorities outlined in President Joseph Aoun’s inaugural speech: restoring the rule of law and sovereignty, reforming institutions, and committing to the implementation of UN Resolution 1701. The declaration contained at least two clear warning signals directed at Hezbollah. Nawaf Salam reaffirmed the government’s stance that only the state should have the authority to decide on matters of war and peace and hold a monopoly on the use of weapons. Regarding judicial independence, the declaration stressed the urgent need to shield the judiciary from interference and pressure, particularly in relation to the investigation of the Beirut port explosion. This was an explicit reference to the fact that the "Shiite duo" has been obstructing the work of Judge Tarek Bitar, who, in the course of his investigation, attempted to summon high-ranking members of the Amal Movement for questioning. In his speech, Mohammed Raad, the leader of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc, while offering a few policy recommendations, refrained from harsh criticism of the government and expressed the faction’s trust in it. Other MPs' speeches reflected cautious optimism toward the government's agenda, frequently emphasizing that their support was conditional and could only be justified by concrete steps toward promised reforms. Common ground for the speeches were calls to resolve the problems of depositors and the entire banking sector, to conduct electoral reform and future elections on time, and to economically revitalize depressed areas. The two most popular appeals turned out to be issues that opposing forces usually raise on their banners - the need to put an end to the Israeli occupation and to hand over all weapons to the state. Ultimately, 95 MPs voted to vote in confidence in the cabinet, 12 voted against it and 4 abstained from voting. Overall, the new Lebanese government appears to be, at the very least, an extremely interesting and therefore promising structure. Attention is drawn both to the stylistic aspects – the high representation of women and people with an academic background – and to the formal ones – the absence of a blocking third and the large number of ministers appointed by a tandem of senior officials. All this creates the impression of a very balanced and well-composed cabinet, which is likely to be largely capable of coping with the ambitious tasks of restructuring the country. At the same time, the cabinet in its current form will exist only until the parliamentary elections in May 2026, when the updated balance of power will be established. In this regard, the little over a year that the cabinet has seems to be a period that is insufficient to achieve all the goals set, but suitable for starting the flywheel of change. And despite the fact that Hezbollah and the new Lebanese leadership, represented by the president and prime minister, do not find understanding on all issues, there is something that unites them - to put it mildly, a cool attitude towards Israel. However, on this front, as it turns out, everything is not going as smoothly as we would like. Retreating "Israeli-Style": The IDF Bids Farewell, But Doesn’t Quite Leave… The ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel officially expired on February 18, by which time the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were expected to fully withdraw from Lebanese territory. However, few anticipated that the process would proceed without surprises, given reports of Israel’s interest in extending the agreement once again. Indeed, just one day before the deadline, Israeli military officials announced that, as a temporary measure, the army would maintain its presence on five strategic heights. The United States, as the leading party in the ceasefire monitoring committee established by the agreement, was quick to support this move. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s entire political leadership — including the President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of Parliament — continues to insist on the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces. Israel's strategy in the Lebanese direction remains in the logic of tough and uncompromising suppression of security threats. In reality, the "delay" of Israeli troops and the continuation of strikes devalue the entire meaning of the established agreements, giving one of the parties a "legal" opportunity to violate them. In turn, in response, the Israelis insist that Hezbollah is violating its obligations to care for the Litani River. Some experts suggest that the five strongholds in southern Lebanon will become objects of long-term occupation. Control over the hilly terrain along the perimeter of the Israeli border deep in Lebanese territory should obviously create a certain buffer zone, which in theory will secure the borders of the Jewish state. However, if the IDF does not plan to linger on Lebanese soil, it is not very clear until what point its military presence is necessary. In accordance with the agreements, this territory is taken under control by units of the Lebanese Armed Forces, which do not pose any threat to Israel. Moreover, the sincerity of statements about the temporary nature of such measures also calls into question the fact that the land component of the cross-border tensions between Hezbollah and Israel has never been the main cause for concern. The main threat has always come from the missile potential of the Shiite group. In his recent statement, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem predictably demanded a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanese territory after October 18 and called on the government to pursue this without compromise. At the same time, he did not disclose what specific actions would be otherwise, but noted that “everyone knows how to deal with occupation.” The restrained tone of his remarks (albeit against the backdrop of the usual anti-Israeli rhetoric) and the lack of any particular threats in the words of the organization’s leader in the language of Hezbollah can be considered cautious statements. Without a doubt, the group at this stage does not have the resources to actively oppose Israel: deliberately going into confrontation today is the same as throwing a slingshot at a tank. Moreover, escalation puts at risk the predominantly Shiite population of southern Lebanon, which is a key component of the organization’s supporters and has already become refugees. The Waning Influence of Hezbollah In addition to the challenges of de-occupation of Lebanese territory, both domestic and foreign policy developments in recent months have been marked by other significant events. All of them point to a certain reconfiguration of Lebanon’s political landscape — one that, more often than not, appears to be unfavorable for Hezbollah. The expected shift is taking place in the system of foreign relations - preconditions for strengthening American-Saudi influence are emerging, namely, the name of the recently elected president of the country was associated with the protection of Washington and Riyadh. Thus, it is this alliance (but, above all, the Saudis) that has for many years acted as a counterweight to Iranian influence on Lebanon, the main conductor of which is Hezbollah. In January, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, visited Beirut for the first time in 15 years. He expressed support for the president and the prime minister in their course for reform. A few weeks later, the example of her Saudi colleague was followed by the deputy special representative of the US president for the Middle East, Morgan Orgatus. However, her visit caused much more noise: from indignation over a ring in the form of the Star of David at a meeting with the Lebanese president to an audience with an ally of Hezbollah, the speaker Nabih Berri, who during the conversation called Israel "absolute evil". It is curious that the American envoy's visit took place on the eve of the announcement of the cabinet composition. In this regard, her statements that «Hezbollah should not be part of this government in any form» did not go unnoticed, especially after the list of ministers was made public. Another big event was the announcement that Lebanon had a “future” again. Saad Hariri, the longtime leader of the Mustaqbal (Arabic for “future”) movement and former prime minister, announced his return to politics after a three-year hiatus on the twentieth anniversary of the assassination of his father, also Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Before the 2022 parliamentary elections, he announced that he would not participate in them and effectively dissolved his movement. This step left the Sunni forces fragmented (and therefore weak), and the Sunni part of Lebanese politics was left without a clear leader at the helm. This happened because Mustaqbal had long dominated this segment of society, and now Saad Hariri found the best opportunity to make a political comeback. His return to politics can also be seen as an additional factor in the growth of Saudi influence, since he himself is a native of Riyadh and a subject of the kingdom. His ties to the Al Saud family, which go back to his father, have never been a secret, but after the incident in 2017 [7], the relationship has been going through hard times. He also has certain connections to the Emirati elite, in particular to Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Finally, the most important news of recent weeks is the government-initiated ban on Iranian civilian aircraft landing in Lebanon, and in particular at Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport. After one of the Iranian airliners was denied landing, Hezbollah supporters began protests and blocked the road to the only international airport in the country. The government's extension of this measure, first until February 18, and now indefinitely, is due to information published by the IDF that Iran is sending funds to Hezbollah via aircraft. In his statement following the events, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem did not vigorously attack the country's leadership, noting that the decision was made under the threat of an Israeli «strike on the runway» if the Iranian plane landed. At the same time, he criticized the government's position, which assumes compliance with Israeli orders. This development once again demonstrates the waning power of Hezbollah and reveals how tense the situation is in Lebanon. *** The recent public funeral of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, as a symbol of the end of an era, involuntarily becomes the leitmotif of complex internal Lebanese processes. The flight of Israeli fighters over the funeral procession of many thousands and the absence of the president and prime minister, despite the invitation, make comments unnecessary. At present, in the words of the funeral speech of Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem, the time has come for “state responsibility” — Hezbollah is deliberately giving way to the proscenium (but not leaving), realizing the sensitivity of the moment and its own difficulties. And although today it seems that the new reality has already been formed, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this transition is still far from complete. Most likely, a somewhat predictable situation (if this is applicable to Lebanon at all) will be achieved only after the parliamentary elections in 2026. The path to them in the next year or so will be no less important, but electoral cycles often tend to present surprises. For now, Hezbollah's chosen line of minimizing conflict and a reasonable, but sometimes unyielding, conversation with the new government seems balanced. Three aspects will be key factors at this time that can determine Hezbollah's future. First, the degree of consolidation of the Shiite population around the organization. The extent to which the leadership manages its resources in relation to people is the extent to which the group will remain firmly on its feet. As after the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah (through its institutions such as Jihad al-Binaa [8]) is engaged in the reconstruction of housing in the affected areas and the payment of targeted compensation (rent). However, this campaign is already facing financial difficulties, despite the tens of millions of dollars spent, since the organization relies almost exclusively on Iran. In this and other dimensions, Tehran's position in the medium term is also critical. Second, the topic of Hezbollah's disarmament will acquire particular importance in the foreseeable future. This problem has already been outlined by the country's top leadership on several occasions, and has also been mentioned in the government's declaration to parliament and supported by a considerable number of deputies in their speeches thereafter. It is becoming clear that such statements are not a bluff, they are for the benefit of Lebanon's international image, but it is not yet at all obvious how this process can be set in motion without clashes within the country. The requisition of weapons from Hezbollah will mean a radical change in the ontological foundations of the group's existence. Strictly speaking, it will no longer be Hezbollah, but something else. The last defining aspect, certainly related to everything outlined earlier, is Israel's behavior. Its escalation will catalyze two mutually directed processes - the government will increasingly put pressure on Hezbollah with the goal of pacifying it or even disarming it, while the group itself will be less and less willing to do so. At the same time, the scenario in which the Israelis manage to completely defeat Hezbollah seems as unrealistic as the idea that Israel will soon abandon its assertive (if not aggressive) policy of suppressing security threats. In this regard, the development of the situation in the Washington-Tehran-Tel Aviv triangle will, for obvious reasons, continue to be relevant for Lebanon and Hezbollah. It is still too early to see Hezbollah as a dying swan. At this stage, the organization stands at a crossroads, where the choice of path carries significant consequences. Only time will tell whether the new leadership can make the right decisions, rebuild the organization's structure, and improve its internal Lebanese relations. The current state of international politics, with its unexpected twists and sudden outcomes, suggests that Hezbollah should rather be viewed as a black swan.  1. The Executive Council is one of the five main bodies of Hezbollah, responsible for the non-military and non-political development of the group (education, social support, medical care, media support, etc.). 2. The Cedar Revolution is a series of popular protests after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, centered around the Syrian military presence in Lebanon (both condemning and supporting it). As a result of the protests, Syrian troops were withdrawn from the country after 30 years on Lebanese soil. 3. According to the Lebanese newspaper L’Orient-Le Jour, the Minister of Youth and Sports Nura Bayrakdaryan is an active member of the Armenian Dashnaktsutyun party, however, according to the prime minister’s inaugural statements, the cabinet does not have any ministers who are party members. 4. There are 24 ministers in the government, including the prime minister and deputy prime minister, respectively, the remaining 22 ministers are responsible for their respective areas. 5. The ministers stopped participating in the government's work and submitted their resignations, which, however, were not accepted by the prime minister. 6. The pro-Syrian (and/or pro-Iranian) parliamentary bloc that emerged as a result of the Cedar Revolution of 2005 was formed on the basis of three major political forces: Hezbollah, Amal and the Free Patriotic Movement, as well as their junior partners. 7. In November 2017, while serving as the prime minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri was effectively detained in Saudi Arabia. He then went on television to announce his resignation and condemn Hezbollah and Iranian influence in the country. The situation was later resolved and the prime minister was released. 8. Jihad al-Binaa is an organization within Hezbollah that is involved in the construction of infrastructure and the construction (reconstruction) of buildings.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Introduction Political sociologists concur that no society exhibits complete homogeneity in its structure; however, the degree of internal variation differs significantly across societies. Subcultures—defined by linguistic, religious, tribal, sectarian, racial or national distinctions—can serve as points of leverage in managing interstate conflicts, with states potentially exploiting these divisions either positively or negatively. This fragmentation leads to a spectrum of loyalties, ranging from the immediate family unit to broader affiliations such as clan, tribe, nationality, or religion, encapsulating the essence of the Pyramidal Segmentary theory.[2] This issue arises when individuals or groups experience a dispute between loyalty to a higher affiliation and loyalty to a lower one. Such disputes provide an entry point for political exploitation by other states, especially since the theory suggests that, in cases of dispute, lower loyalties often take precedence over higher ones. The intensity of these disputes can escalate when they develop into full-blown conflicts. This dynamic is further elucidated by Elizabeth Colson’s theory of Conflicting Loyalties. Colson argues that there is a fundamental disagreement regarding the priorities of loyalty—whether lower loyalty or higher loyalty should take precedence. If higher loyalty prevails, subcultures will face significant pressure to conform to the demands of the higher loyalty. However, if lower loyalty prevails, societal unity is at risk of geographic and political fragmentation.[3] These dynamics are central to strategic planning by international actors, particularly in their engagement with minority issues and their potential utilization. This study aims to elucidate the potential resurgence of Israel’s historical projects in this domain, identifying indicators of such revival, and examining mechanisms to counteract these developments, as well as their implications for Palestinian rights. First: Arab Pyramidal Segmentary A comparison between the Arab region and other geopolitical areas reveals significant differences in the level and dimensions of Pyramidal Segmentary, as shown in the following table:[4] The table indicates that: 1. The Arab world exhibits a moderate level of ethnic diversity compared to other global regions. However, since 2014, it has experienced the highest levels of political instability.[6] This disparity suggests that ethnic diversity alone does not account for the region’s instability. Therefore, it is essential to examine additional factors contributing to this instability, while still acknowledging the role of minority groups. 2. If we examine the relationship between the level of democracy and ethnic diversity in Arab countries, we observe that the extent of ethnic diversity does not align with the degree of democratic governance. While the Arab region ranks lowest in terms of democracy, its ethnic diversity is not as pronounced as that of Africa. However, despite this, democracy in Africa surpasses that in the Arab region.[7] The above indicates that external powers recognize that instability and the absence of democracy provide an entry point to exploit the grievances of minorities in the Arab world, especially when ethnic diversity is combined with variables governing minority separatism. In a previous study, we found that the geographical variable is the most important factor in promoting the separatist tendency of any minority. This variable is represented in three dimensions:[8] 1. Minorities situated on the periphery of a state, such as the tribes of South Sudan and the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, often find it easier to engage with neighboring regions and the international community. This peripheral location facilitates the arrival of international aid and foreign intervention. In contrast, minorities located in the heartland, like the Amazigh in the Maghreb countries, may experience different dynamics due to their central position within the state. 2. The concentration of a minority population in a specific geographical area, such as the Kurds in Syria or Iraq, can reinforce their sub-identity. Conversely, minorities like Christians in Egypt or Shiites in Saudi Arabia, who are dispersed across various regions, may experience a different dynamic. In these cases, the lack of a concentrated territory can lead to a more fragmented sense of identity. 3. The presence of significant economic resources in regions predominantly inhabited by minorities can lead to economic benefits being concentrated among a smaller segment of the population, rather than the majority. This concentration can foster separatist sentiments, as seen with oil in Iraqi Kurdistan and northern Syria, and petroleum in South Sudan prior to its secession. Second: The Historical Record of Israeli Infiltration into the Structure of Minorities in Arab Countries Israeli studies and reports document facts about Israel’s cooperation with Arab minorities, while official Israeli literature has promoted political projects aimed at integrating minorities into its broader penetration strategies. This is evident in the following examples: 1. An Israeli study indicates that, before the Camp David period, relations with Arab minorities and certain Arab countries were overseen by Israeli security agencies rather than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs due to the fundamental hostility between Israel and the Arabs. Furthermore, some interactions with minorities required confidentiality, as was the case with the Kurds, the Maronites and certain groups in the Maghreb.[9] 2. A dissertation traces the development of contacts between the Jewish Agency and minorities, particularly the Kurds, in the early 1930s. It examines Israel’s efforts to instill the concept of “Greater Kurdistan” among Kurdish minorities, with an initial focus on Iraq. However, these attempts faced opposition from the countries with Kurdish minorities, namely Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. The study then examines how the extent of Zionist penetration into Kurdish society was linked to the political regime’s stance toward Israel in the Middle Eastern country. Accordingly, Zionist plans emphasized that Kurds and Jews share a common enemy—the Arabs—framing cooperation between the two as necessary in confronting this shared adversary.[10] 3. At a later stage, the issue of the relationship with minorities in the Arab world evolved into declared projects, occupying the focus of research circles in Israel. This was evident in the work of Oded Yinon, who was responsible for the long-term planning division in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His central idea was to divide Arab countries based on sub-identity lines, even very narrow ones.[11] 4. The effort to perpetuate the sub-identities of minorities—sectarian, religious, ethnic, and others—by disseminating extensive literature on each group. The ultimate goal is to position the Jewish identity in the Middle East as an integral and consistent part of the region’s broader ethnic landscape.[12] In his book, Kamal Jumblatt discusses Israel’s relationship with certain sub-identities in Lebanon, including its provision of weapons, and highlights studies published by various institutions to reinforce subcultural identities. He references correspondence between former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett and his ambassador in Rome, which outlines a strategy to fragment the region—Lebanon in particular—into sectarian states, thereby establishing Israel as the dominant power while aligning its political geography with the social composition of neighboring countries.[13] 5. In his October 2024 appointment speech, Israel’s current foreign minister, Gideon Sa‘ar, emphasized the need to re-establish relations with the Kurds, whom he viewed as being “victims of repression and hostility on the part of Iran and Turkey.” He highlighted that “they enjoy autonomy…in Syria it is de facto, and in Iraq it is also de jure, in the Iraqi constitution.” Sa‘ar also advocated for strengthening ties with the Druze in both Syria and Lebanon, presenting this strategy as a counterbalance to what he described as Iran’s use of minorities to further its regional policies.[14] He believes that “an alliance with the moderate Sunni Arab countries will ensure Israel’s security against the Iranian axis,” effectively aligning along sectarian lines.[15] He has advocated for the division of Syria into several states: a Sunni state in the center, a Druze one in the south, an Alawite state along the coast, and a Kurdish in the north.[16] Third: Utilizing the Variables Governing Israel’s Relationship with Minorities in the Arab World Israeli policy towards sub-identities in the Arab world is characterized by clear duplicity. On one hand, it aims to dismantle Palestinian refugee camps (RCs) in the Arab diaspora, particularly in neighboring Arab countries, as these RCs have been a key factor in strengthening Palestinian national identity, which Israel views negatively. Simultaneously, it seeks to assimilate Palestinian refugees into the societies of the diaspora. In October 2024, Israel took steps to disrupt the operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in RCs in the occupied territories, intending to push these RCs toward social disintegration due to economic hardship. The Knesset passed two laws that ban all UNRWA activities and services in Israel, sever all ties between government employees and UNRWA and strips its staff of their legal immunities.[17] This position has been supported by the US since the first Trump presidency. A document titled Concept Paper, published and prepared by Israeli security agencies, outlines plans to integrate Palestinians into both Arab and Western societies.[18] This aligns with President Trump’s February 2025 proposal to relocate Gazans and resettle them in non-Palestinian communities.[19] On the other hand, Israel actively works to revive sub-identities within Arab society to encourage separatist movements and further geopolitical fragmentation. It is among the strongest supporters of separatist tendencies, as seen in its growing ties with South Sudan following its secession, its relationships with Kurdish groups in Iraq and Syria, and its engagement with certain Christian factions in Lebanon. This highlights the political exploitation of sub-identities to serve Israeli interests. This means that the Israeli strategy relies on contradictory approaches. On one hand, it aims to assimilate and integrate Palestinians into diaspora societies, while on the other, it seeks to revive the historical identities of subcultures in Arab countries to dismantle these nations. Furthermore, it strives to revive Jewish sub-identities in societies worldwide, encouraging disconnection from their original communities and migration to Israel based solely on religious identity. This is further evidenced by Netanyahu’s calls for Israel to be a “Jewish state.”[20] Fourth: Israeli Infiltration Mechanisms within Sub-Identities Israel’s strategy of infiltrating sub-identities within the Arab world is founded on several key principles: 1. Awareness of the Phenomenon of Arab Minorities: Scientific research on ethnicity, sectarianism, and other sub-identities is central to a broad network of research centers. One key institution in this field is the Shiloah Institute, which was founded in 1959 and was named after Reuven Shiloah, the first director of the Mossad and a specialist in Kurdish affairs. The institute was to be linked to the Hebrew University but was duly established to Tel Aviv University in 1965, where it became known as the Shiloah Institute for Middle Eastern and African Studies. It includes departments focused on central Middle East regions, each headed by an expert assigned to a specific region.[21] Notably, current Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa‘ar was among those involved in this academic work. 2. Direct Communication with the Elites and Party Leaders of Some Minorities: A review of studies on this issue reveals that Israel has historically exploited the sensitivities between sub-identities to engage with their leaders, amplifying their fears and offering support to confront the “tyranny of the Arab majority.” Initially, covert and semi-public channels were the primary strategy for Israel. However, as the base of normalization expanded with several key Arab countries, these methods became less covert, with a focus on engaging with sub-identity elites in the countries neighboring Israel.[22] However, this does not mean Israel overlooked minority elites in other countries such as Sudan or Morocco. Many Israeli studies highlight rounds of secret talks with Sudanese leaders during the intense periods of Arab nationalist movements, which lasted from 1954 to 2019. These efforts ultimately paved the way for full normalization between the two parties, with the secession of South Sudan being one of the significant outcomes of Israel’s involvement in this regard.[23] 3. Exploiting Minority Grievances and Authoritarianism on Sub-Identities and Income Misdistribution: The Israeli focus is primarily on minorities where the geographical determinant encompasses three key dimensions: peripheral location, significant economic resources, and demographic concentration. This focus is most evident in relations with the Kurds and South Sudan, though the political exploitation of other minorities remains significant as well. The gaps in democracy and the unequal income distribution across groups or regions within Arab societies provide an easy loophole for exploitation. The Arab region, being the least democratic globally and one of the most unequal in terms of wealth distribution (according to the Gini Index), faces a situation that fosters political instability and promotes separatist tendencies. 4. Israel seeks to dismantle the social fabric of historic Palestine through the Pyramidal Segmentary theory, dividing Palestinian society into three groups: the Arabs of 1948, the inhabitants of what it calls “Judea and Samaria,” and the residents of Gaza Strip (GS). It then further fractures Palestinian identity within each group, classifying the Arabs of 1948 into Christians, Muslims, Druze and Bedouins (Negev).[24] In the West Bank (WB) and GS, it promotes local government administrations based on tribal and clan affiliations, fostering lower loyalties at the expense of the higher loyalty.[25] Furthermore, it has announced a Shin Bet plan to divide GS into small local districts, assigning their administration to tribal or clan leaders based on the size of each tribe or clan.[26] Despite tribal and clan leaders rejecting this Israeli concept, research in this direction continues intensively. Notably, discussions on this matter are not isolated from past precedents, such as Village Leagues in WB. In fact, research on this topic dates back more than a decade and a half before Operation al-Aqsa Flood.[27] This demonstrates that Israeli policy applies the Pyramidal Segmentary theory to serve political objectives rather than adhering to international norms and conventions. The table below highlights this contrast:   The table above reveals the following: 1. Israel encourages Jews abroad to maintain their sub-identity in anticipation of future immigration to Israel, while simultaneously weakening their broader national identity in favor of religious or ethnic affiliation. In contrast, it pushes the Palestinian diaspora countries toward policies of integration, assimilation and naturalization. 2. In Israel, the Jewish community is focused on promoting common values that define Jewish identity, striving to create unity by employing the Melting Pot approach to eliminate sub-identities (such as Ashkenazi/ Sephardic, white/ black, Russian, African, Arab, and others). At the same time, efforts are being made to revive sub-identities among Palestinians in WB, 1948 Palestinians, and those in GS, through distinctions such as tribe, clan, sect, religion, nationality (Arabs/ Druze), or place of residence (urban/ Bedouin/ peasants). 3. Efforts to strengthen the collective identity of Israeli society, rooted in the Jewish religion, are reflected in the growing influence of Jewish religious forces and their increasing political weight in decision-making. Meanwhile, there is a push to assign local authorities and administrations in Palestinian areas based on social divisions, such as village leagues, clans and tribes, etc. 4. Weakening the geographical determinant in its three dimensions, as discussed previously, aims to push the Palestinian individual to emigrate. Fifth: Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the above, any revival of sub-identities within Palestinian society contributes directly to Israel’s project of fragmenting the Palestinian social fabric, which underpins all forms of resistance. Whether the fragmentation occurs on regional, ethnic, sectarian, religious, tribal, or clan lines, it significantly serves Israel’s political strategy, which calls for: 1. Intensifying scientific studies and the content of Palestinian political discourse should focus on fostering general loyalty to Palestinian identity, rather than special or lower loyalty (such as organizational, tribal, regional, or religious), as outlined in the Pyramidal Segmentary theory. This responsibility falls on universities, research centers, Palestinian organizations, and civil society bodies. 2. Palestinian organizations should consider how to adapt Israeli political practices to target Israeli sub-identities. In a previous study, we highlighted the significant diversity of Israeli sub-identities, which could be leveraged to destabilize the Israeli social structure.[28] 3. There is a need to strengthen and institutionalize communication between Palestinian organizations and Palestinians in the Diaspora, encouraging the establishment of civil society organizations that aim to preserve Palestinian identity through educational tools and various social symbols. This approach mirrors the method employed by Israel with Jewish communities worldwide. 4. Supporting political trends in the Middle East, particularly those that eliminate binary narratives of sub-identities and counter trends that deepen fragmentation. The uniqueness of the Palestinian situation necessitates a stronger focus on the literature of national identity within Palestinian society, with loyalty to it serving as the foundation. This applies not only to Palestinians in historic Palestine but also to those in refugee camps in neighboring countries and the Palestinian diaspora abroad. References [1] An expert in futures studies, a former professor in the Department of Political Science at Yarmouk University in Jordan and a holder of Ph.D. in Political Science from Cairo University. He is also a former member of the Board of Trustees of Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Irbid National University, the National Center for Human Rights, the Board of Grievances and the Supreme Council of Media. He has authored 37 books, most of which are focused on future studies in both theoretical and practical terms, and published 120 research papers in peer-reviewed academic journals.[2] T.V. Sathyamurthy, Nationalism in the Contemporary World: Political and Sociological Perspectives (London: Frances Pinter, 1983), pp. 74–76.[3] Gay Elizabeth Kang, “Conflicting Loyalties Theory: A Cross-Cultural Test,” Ethnology journal, vol. 15, no. 2, April 1976, pp. 203–207.[4] Walid ‘Abd al-Hay, “A Model for the Measurement of Secessionist Tendencies among Minorities in the Arab World,” Omran journal, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, vol. 1, no. 4, 2013, pp. 67-68. (in Arabic)[5] Encyclopedia Britannica defines ethnicity as “the identification of a group based on a perceived cultural distinctiveness that makes the group into a ‘people.’ This distinctiveness is believed to be expressed in language, music, values, art, styles, literature, family life, religion, ritual, food, naming, public life, and material culture,” see ethnicity, site of Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnicity[6] Institute for Economics & Peace, “Global Peace Index 2024: Measuring Peace in a Complex World,” Sydney, June 2024, https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GPI-2024-web.pdf[7] Democracy Index 2023, Age of conflict, site of Economist Intelligent (EIU), https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/Democracy-Index-2023-Final-report.pdf[8] Walid ‘Abd al-Hay, “A Model for the Measurement of Secessionist Tendencies among Minorities in the Arab World,” Omran, vol. 1, no. 4, 2013, p. 61. (in Arabic)[9] Pinhas Inbari, “Why Did the Idea of an Alliance between Israel and Minorities in the Levant Collapse?,” Strategic Assessment journal, Institute for National Security Studies, vol. 26, no. 1, March 2023, pp. 142–145, https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Inbari.pdfSee also the relationship with the Berber (Amazigh) in Morocco: Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, “Morocco’s Berbers and Israel,” Middle East Quarterly journal, Middle East Forum (MEF), December 2011, pp. 82–84[10] Scott Abramson, “Early Zionist-Kurdish Contacts and the Pursuit of Cooperation: the Antecedents of an Alliance, 1931-1951” (PhD dissertation, University of California, 2019), pp. 14–25 and 29–41, https://escholarship.org/content/qt2ds1052b/qt2ds1052b_noSplash_b0b0087d30def88f05e48b5dc022997b.pdf?t=py0wm5[11] Israel Shahak, The Zionist Plan for the Middle East (Belmont: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., 1982), Special Document No.1, https://archive.org/details/the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-by-oded-yinon-israel-shahak-yinon-oded-shah[12] Mordechai Nisan, Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-Expression, 2nd edition (Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 2002), pp.13–23.[13] Kamal Jumblatt, Hazihi Wasiyyati (This is My Will), 1st edition (Paris: Arab World Institute, 1978), pp.76–77.[14] Newly-Appointed Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar: We Still Aim For Peace With The Arab World; We Must Seek Out Natural Alliances With Minorities In The Region, Such As The Kurds, Druze, site of The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), 10/11/2024, https://www.memri.org/tv/israeli-fm-gideon-saar-appointment-speech-natural-alliances-minorities-region[15] Sam Sokol, Sa’ar says Israel should seek alliances with Kurds and Druze in the region, site of The Times of Israel, 27/10/2024, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saar-says-israel-should-seek-alliances-with-kurds-and-druze-in-the-region/[16] Gideon Sa‘ar and Gabi Siboni, “Farewell to Syria,” INSS Insight, no. 754, site of The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), 13/10/2015, https://www.inss.org.il/publication/farewell-to-syria/[17] Joseph Krauss, Julia Frankel and Melanie Lidman, Israel approves two bills that could halt UNRWA’s aid delivery to Gaza. What does that mean?, site of Associated Press (AP), 29/10/2024, https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-un-aid-refugees-16bc0524adc947b95abe25d7d9eca038[18] Amy Teibel, AP and TOI Staff, Intelligence Ministry ‘concept paper’ proposes transferring Gazans to Egypt’s Sinai, The Times of Israel, 31/10/2023, https://www.timesofisrael.com/intelligence-ministry-concept-paper-proposes-transferring-gazans-to-egypts-sinai/[19] What is Trump’s Proposal for Gaza?, site of American Jewish Committee (AJC), 12/2/2025, https://www.ajc.org/news/what-is-trumps-proposal-for-gaza[20] To examine the issue of Jewish minorities worldwide and Israel’s approach, with particular emphasis on the dichotomy between Judaism and nationalism—specifically, the distinction between ethnicity and religious affiliation. See William Safran, “Israel and the Diaspora, Problems of Cognitive Dissonance,” International Migration Institute (IMI) Working Paper, no. 53, April 2012, pp.4–6 and 13–16.[21] Reuven Shiloah (Saslani), site of Jewish Virtual Library, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/shiloa-x1e25-zaslani-reuben; and Haggai Eshed, The Man Behind the Mossad, translated by David & Leah Zinder (Abingdon: Frank Cass & Co, 1997), pp. 33–34.[22] Pinhas Inbari, “Why Did the Idea of an Alliance between Israel and Minorities in the Levant Collapse?,” Strategic Assessment, vol. 26, no. 1, March 2023.[23] For details on the depth of penetration of elites and minorities in Sudan, see Elie Podeh and Andrew Felsenthal, “Israel and Sudan: The Origins of Clandestine Relations 1954–1964,” Israel Studies journal, vol. 28, no. 2, June 2023, passim.[24] On these issues, see Kay Zare, “Permanent Transitions: Collective Identity Formation in Israel, Jordan, and Palestine,” site of American University, 2010, https://www.american.edu/spa/publicpurpose/upload/permanent-transitions-2.pdf; and Mia Heapy, Complex Identity Politics In Israel/Palestine, site of The Organization for World Peace (OWP), 10/6/2021, https://theowp.org/reports/complex-identity-politics-in-israel-palestine[25] Hisham Motkal Abu-Rayya and Maram Hussien Abu-Rayya, “Acculturation, religious identity, and psychological well-being among Palestinians in Israel,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Elsevier, vol. 33, no. 4, July 2009, pp. 325–331, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014717670900056X[26] Nagham Mohanna, Gaza tribes helping Israel to administer territory would be recipe for chaos, experts say, site of The National, 14/3/2024, https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/palestine-israel/2024/03/14/gaza-tribes-helping-israel-to-administer-territory-would-be-recipe-for-chaos-experts-say/; and Yaniv Voller, The Inevitable Role of Clans in Post-Conflict Stabilization in Gaza, site of War on the Rocks, 24/5/2024, https://warontherocks.com/2024/05/the-inevitable-role-of-clans-in-post-conflict-stabilization-in-gaza/[27] Extensive discussions among Israeli elites address this topic, and a review of these papers and their referenced sources should be sufficient to illustrate Israel’s interest in this concept. See Dror Ze’evi, “Clans and Militias in Palestinian Politics,” Middle East Brief series, no. 26, Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University, February 2008, pp. 3–6.[28] Walid ‘Abd al-Hay, The Correlation Between Social Deviance and Political Violence in Settler Colonial Societies: Israel as a Model, site of al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, 10/12/2020, https://eng.alzaytouna.net/2020/12/10/academic-paper-the-correlation-between-social-deviance-and-political-violence-in-settler-colonial-societies-israel-as-a-model/

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском On 8 December 2024, the streets of Damascus erupted in a mix of jubilation and uncertainty as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Sunni Islamist militia with roots as an al-Qaeda offshoot, toppled Bashar al-Assad’s regime after a stunning 11-day offensive. Overnight, Syria’s transitional government, led by HTS commander Ahmed al-Sharaa, emerged from the ashes of a decades-long dictatorship. Within days, Turkey reopened its embassy, Saudi Arabia offered a diplomatic relationship, and the U.S. lifted al-Sharaa’s $10 million bounty after a meeting. By December 2024, Qatar and France recognized this authority, while Russia, Britain, and Iraq showed openness. Yet, this swift acceptance of an unelected, terrorist-rooted regime—akin to the Taliban’s 2021 takeover— undermines established norms. It sidelines democracy, excuses HTS’s violent past, and frays a rules-based order as states favor strategy over law. The Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 and HTS’s rapid rise in Syria highlight a troubling trend: military control trumps democratic legitimacy and accountability. This pattern, driven by inconsistent global recognition standards, risks emboldening extremist factions—such as the Islamic State in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Yemen, and Lebanon’s Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Fatah al-Islam, Hurras al-Din, and Jund al-Sham—to pursue similar strategies, further destabilizing a region already scarred by sectarian conflict. The rise of HTS has shown that states prioritize strategic interests over legal values. Turkey, a long-time supporter of the Syrian opposition, acted swiftly: on December 12, 2024, intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin visited Damascus, pledging support for stabilization efforts. Two days later, its embassy reopened, affirming prior ties. Saudi Arabia, countering Iran, followed: on January 24, 2025, Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan met al-Sharaa in Damascus; a week later, on February 2, al-Sharaa’s Riyadh visit—his first as leader—sealed a diplomatic win. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s warm welcome signaled Arab recognition. Qatar recognized the transitional government and dispatched a delegation to Damascus on December 12. France endorsed HTS through envoy Jean-François Guillaume’s mid-December talks. The U.S. opted for de facto engagement, lifting al-Sharaa’s bounty after a December meeting. On February 12, Russia’s Vladimir Putin held a constructive call with al-Sharaa, moving to delist HTS as a terrorist group. Iraq invited al-Sharaa to a May 2025 Arab Summit, and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi welcomed him to a March 4 Cairo summit, where he met Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and urged Israel’s withdrawal from southern Syria. The UN’s Geir Pedersen, meeting al-Sharaa in December, pushed for inclusivity under Resolution 2254. The Taliban’s slower path to acceptance contrasts sharply. Since seizing Afghanistan in 2021, it has ruled without elections or a constitution, lacking de jure recognition by February 2025 despite ties with China, Russia, and Pakistan. Qatar, the UAE, and Turkey keep pragmatic links, while Saudi Arabia reopened its Kabul embassy in December 2024. The U.S., via Qatar and UN channels, prioritizes humanitarian needs over legitimacy. Its exclusionary rule—banning women’s education, sidelining minorities—defies norms, hindering broader acceptance. HTS has gained quicker goodwill. Al-Sharaa’s inclusivity pledges, invitations to ex-Ba’athists like Farouk al-Sharaa, and prisoner releases suggest moderation. Unlike the Taliban’s gender apartheid, HTS avoids barring women from public life—though its stance is untested. Assad’s fall, marked by war crimes, casts HTS as a liberator. Yet, the world overlooks HTS’s dark past, swapping Assad’s autocracy for an unproven group. The vulnerability of parts of Asia and the Middle East to terrorist groups seizing power raises concerns that this could become a repeatable strategy. The constitutive theory, tying legitimacy to recognition, falters as HTS gains de facto and formal backing. If brute force proves sufficient for recognition, groups like ISKP in Afghanistan or AQAP in Yemen may seek to replicate this model. Hurras al-Din in Idlib, Jaish al-Adl on Iran’s border, or the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan could exploit vacuums. Syria risks losing oil fields to ISIS; Iraq’s fault lines invite resurgence; Yemen aids AQAP; Lebanon tempts jihadists; and Iran faces border threats. In Yemen, where Houthis battle a crumbling south, AQAP could seize on HTS’s success, potentially making Aden a jihadist hub. Lebanon, reeling from Hezbollah’s 2023-24 clash with Israel and economic collapse, invites Sunni extremists to exploit rifts—Arsal, a militant border town, could be next. Iraq’s rural areas, stalked by ISIS cells, risk resurgence if Baghdad weakens. These nations, scarred by proxy wars and failed governance, face greater threats as HTS’s model hints territorial conquest can win tolerance, if not legitimacy. The recognition of Syria’s HTS-led government could galvanize terrorist groups within, sparking crises as they emulate territorial takeover for acceptance. The unrest in Jaramana, a Damascus suburb, shows this: Syria sent forces after a militia linked to Assad’s regime killed an officer at a checkpoint, defying surrender. Lieutenant Colonel Hussam al-Tahan told SANA it targets illegal groups, but the clash—amid Israel’s Druze defense claim—reveals how militias, emboldened by HTS, could exploit weak authority. Hurras al-Din and Islamic State might seize territory, worsening chaos post-Assad.  This danger has erupted in Syria’s Alawite coastal strongholds, where security forces clashed with pro-Assad gunmen in Latakia and Tartous in early March 2025, leaving over 130 dead, per the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Turkey and Saudi Arabia’s acceptance of HTS has fueled such unrest, inviting rival factions to seize territory and seek similar recognition. Israel, claiming to protect minorities, and Iran, potentially backing the Alawites, exploit this chaos—pushing Syria toward partition and creating a fractured state where power supersedes law. For global powers, HTS’s recognition poses a strategic quandary. Iran lost Assad—a major blow in the region. The U.S. and allies, vocal on democracy, weigh their anti-Iran stance against an unelected jihadist regime. This gain could falter if HTS turns radical or if Russia and China exploit the playbook, making the Middle East a proxy chessboard. The strategy—“take territory, wait for acceptance”—worked for the Taliban’s 20-year efforts and HTS’s rapid strike. Without stringent conditions, states risk legitimizing power without elections. Al-Sharaa’s claim on December 30 that elections might take four years met no pushback from the U.S. or Europe—a silence signaling stability over democracy, but at what cost? This precedent erodes core values of international relations, including democracy, accountability, and human rights. HTS’s unelected rule, like the Taliban’s, skirts these norms. De facto engagement—embassies, trade, talks—grants resources without treaty adherence. Their past atrocities—HTS’s civilian attacks, the Taliban’s Al Qaeda ties—go unaddressed, their intentions untested by enforceable promises. Trade with third parties, like China’s mineral deals in Afghanistan or Turkey’s ventures in Syria, risks fueling corruption—Afghanistan’s opium trade now accounts for 90% of the world’s heroin supply, thriving in a governance vacuum. The rush to recognize HTS reflects a realist scramble: Turkey secures its border, Saudi Arabia counters Iran, the U.S. and Israel weaken Tehran’s proxies—without troops. This low-cost, high-impact model could tempt wider use. States might back ISIS in Iraq or AQAP in Yemen to reshape the region. Turkey’s HTS success hinges on moderation; elsewhere, it risks chaos. The lack of a global standard—each state acting independently—undermines international law’s predictability. UN guidelines tying recognition to elections could align legitimacy without rigidity. For now, HTS fills Assad’s vacuum, but at a cost: A Middle East where terrorists become politicians, eroding democracy in a fragile region. Stability today risks a wildfire tomorrow—unless this game is rethought.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Less than a fortnight after Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky had their now-notorious row in the Oval Office and US-Ukrainian relations appeared irretrievably damaged, the two countries have reached an agreement. After nine hours of negotiations behind closed doors in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, negotiators signed off on a US proposal for a 30-day ceasefire, allowing the resumption of military aid and intelligence sharing by the US. This does not mean that the guns in the war will now immediately fall silent. No ceasefire agreement between the warring parties – Russia and Ukraine – has been signed. In fact, it is not even clear how much detail is contained in the proposal and how much of it has already been discussed with Russia during earlier talks between senior US and Russian officials. Nonetheless, the deal signals a major step forward. From a Ukrainian perspective, it has several advantages. First, the major rift between Kyiv and Washington has at least been partially patched up. The minerals agreement – on hold since the White House shouting match on February 28 –is back on. Trump has extended an invitation to Zelensky to return to Washington to sign it. Equally importantly for Kyiv, the resumption of US weapons deliveries to Ukraine and the lifting of the ban on intelligence sharing were part of the deal, and with immediate effect. This restores critical US battlefield support for Ukraine, including for Kyiv’s capability to strike targets deep inside Russia. By contrast, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is now in a somewhat trickier position. He has to balance his war aims in Ukraine with the arguably more strategically important goal of rapprochement with the US. Talks between senior US and Russian officials on February 18, in the Saudi capital Riyadh, seemed to indicate that Moscow had won significant concessions from Washington – including on retaining illegally occupied territory and no Nato membership for Ukraine. These concessions may still be on the table, alongside other US offers to normalise relations and end Russia’s isolation from the west. But this does not mean that Russia will be in any particular hurry to bring the fighting in Ukraine to an end. The country’s economy has weathered western sanctions remarkably well so far. Putin is also likely to be keen on capitalising further on the momentum that his troops still have on the frontlines inside Ukraine. And he is unlikely to want to sit down to talk about a ceasefire, let alone a peace agreement, with Zelensky as long as Ukraine still holds territory in the Kursk region inside Russia. While Ukrainian troops have come under increasing pressure there recently and are in danger of being encircled, it is likely to take Russia some more time to force them to withdraw completely or to surrender.   Putin is therefore likely to play for more time in an effort to push his advantage on the ground while avoiding upsetting Trump. The deputy head of the upper house of the Russian parliament, the Federation Council, and chairman of its international affairs committee, Konstantin Kosachev, signalled as much after the US-Ukraine deal was announced. He insisted that any agreements would have to be on Russian, rather than American – let alone Ukrainian – terms. This indicates a willingness to talk but also signals that an agreement, even on a ceasefire, will still require further negotiations. Pressure points Playing for time will also allow Putin to avoid rebuffing the American proposal outright. To do so would be a huge gamble for the Russian president. Trump has already proven his willingness to exert maximum pressure on Ukraine – and he seems to have got his way. Ahead of the US-Ukraine meeting in Jeddah, he was also clear that he would consider further sanctions on Russia to force Moscow to accept an end of the fighting in Ukraine. Both of these steps – pressure on Ukraine and on Russia – are part of a plan developed by Trump’s special Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg back in May 2024. Crucially, Kellogg also envisaged continuing “to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement”. If Putin were to reject the current proposal, he would therefore not only risk a broader reset of US-Russia relations but potentially also lose his current battlefield advantage, as well as territory Moscow currently controls. That’s because a boost to Ukrainian military capabilities would likely shift the balance of power, at least on some parts of the front line. The most likely scenario going forward is a two-pronged Russian approach. The Kremlin is likely to engage with the White House on the American ceasefire proposal that has now been accepted by Ukraine while pushing hard for further territorial gains before US-Russia talks conclude. The peculiar set-up of the negotiations also plays into the Kremlin’s hands here. Short of direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow, Washington has to shuttle between them, trying to close gaps between their positions with a mixture of diplomacy and pressure. This has worked reasonably well with Ukraine so far, but it is far less certain that this approach will bear similar fruit with Russia. The temporary ceasefire currently on the table may, or may not, be an important step towards a permanent cessation of violence and a sustainable peace agreement. Whether it will become a milestone on the path to peace will depend on Trump’s willingness to pressure Russia in a similar way to Ukraine. It’s important to remember that Ukraine has already paid a huge price as a result of Russia’s aggression. Any further delay on the path to a just peace will inflict yet more pain on the victim instead of the aggressor. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) [add link: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/] 

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Latin America has been a long-standing policy focus for the United States, aimed at keeping external influences out and maintaining stability in the region. This commitment began with the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary and continued through the Cold War. Under the current administration, there has been a renewed emphasis on Latin America due to rising Chinese influence, drug cartel activity, and immigration issues. The most recent National Security Strategy (NSS) states that no region impacts the United States more than the Western Hemisphere and emphasizes the need to “protect against external interference or coercion, including from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).” However, the United States has not had a coherent strategy or policy toward Latin America in decades, leading to outcomes contrary to its stated goals. The PRC has been rapidly expanding its influence in the region. Since 2010, China has nearly tripled its trade with Latin America, with several nations signing on to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Additionally, Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) continue to affect the United States through drug, weapon, and human trafficking, while also forcing migrants north due to unsafe living conditions in their home countries. Given this situation, the United States must develop a coherent two-pronged strategy toward Latin America. This strategy should involve expanding economic investments to counteract Chinese influence while also strengthening regional security to address the threats posed by TCOs. Recognizing that the PRC and TCOs are different from the Soviets and Marxist guerrillas, US policy during the Cold War provides valuable lessons on what this two-pronged approach could entail. US Cold War Policy in Latin America In the early days of the Cold War, the United States was concerned about the spread of communism in Latin America but initially failed to take meaningful action. It relied instead on outdated policies from the 1920s. This approach continued until the late 1950s, when significant changes occurred in the hemisphere. By then, ten of thirteen dictators had been replaced, economic challenges had intensified, and the prices of Latin American exports had plummeted. This social and political unrest carried over into the 1960s, as the region became “aflame” with Marxist revolutions. The CIA reported that twelve out of twenty-three nations in the southern hemisphere were at risk of falling to communism. This urgency prompted the United States to act, determined to prevent the region from succumbing to Soviet influence and instability. The Kennedy administration identified economic struggles and monetary insecurity as the principal vulnerabilities that could allow communism to take root. To address these issues, the administration launched the Alliance for Progress, a ten-year initiative where the United States would provide $20 billion in loans, grants, and investments, while Latin American governments aimed to generate $80 billion in funds and implement land reforms, tax systems, and other socio-political changes. In tandem with economic initiatives, the United States employed covert actions, counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics, and military support to suppress Marxist revolutions. For instance, in Guatemala, US-backed military forces fought against Marxist revolutionaries with American military assistance. Similar operations took place in El Salvador, Chile, Paraguay, and Brazil. Although not executed flawlessly, this two-pronged strategy ultimately succeeded in keeping Soviet and communist influences largely at bay in the region. Economic assistance and support helped stabilize democracy in Venezuela, while land redistribution and reforms from the Alliance for Progress undermined financial support for Marxist guerrilla groups in Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia. Despite being conducted with a certain level of negligence, US-backed COIN operations across the region weakened guerrilla movements, leading to factional splits and self-defeating behaviors. Notably, US-supported operations included the capture of Che Guevara by a US-trained Bolivian military unit in 1967. Applying a Cold War-like Policy Today Economic challenges are once again prevalent in Latin America, and China is seizing the opportunity. Through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has expanded its influence and bolstered regional ties. Twenty Latin American countries have signed onto the BRI, while Chile, Costa Rica, and Peru have established free trade agreements with the PRC. In 2010, trade between China and South America amounted to $180 billion, which surged to $450 billion by 2021. The United States needs to consider a strategy similar to the Alliance for Progress to effectively compete with the PRC and maintain its influence in the region, as it is currently falling short in this area. In 2023, China invested $9 billion in Latin America through its Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI), while the United States contributed only $2 billion for the same year. As the new administration shapes its foreign policy, it is essential to allocate more economic investment to Latin America. This should involve a deliberate economic policy and investment plan that focuses on trade, port infrastructure, and technological development—all areas where the PRC is currently providing support. The bipartisan Americas Act of 2024 is a good starting point, but it is insufficient to counteract the PRC’s advances. While some might argue that boosting economic investment is too expensive, such efforts would enable the United States to compete with China while stabilizing the region and reducing northward immigration. In tandem with economic investment, the United States must advocate for stronger regional security to combat TCOs, thus fostering stability and improving living conditions. Specifically, the United States should collaborate with Latin American countries to enhance security institutions by expanding advisory and assistance operations with regional militaries, similar to COIN operations during the Cold War. In recent years, the United States military has maintained a significant presence in countries like Colombia, Panama, and Honduras to conduct Foreign Internal Defense (FID) operations, aimed at preparing partner forces to effectively combat TCOs. FID and Security Force Assistance (SFA) operations should include US military support for other nations in the region, such as El Salvador, Bolivia, and Mexico. Historically, countries like Mexico have been hesitant or resistant to accepting US military support; however, this trend has recently shifted. In a positive development, the Mexican Senate has approved a small contingent of US Special Operations Forces (SOF) to assist Mexican SOF personnel. In addition to expanding FID operations, the United States might explore granting broader authorities to allow US military forces to assist regional partners in targeting and operational planning against TCOs. While some may oppose this option, expanded authorities should not come as a surprise, given that the new administration has designated several TCOs as terrorist organizations. This designation opens the door for discussions on expanded authorities. Conclusion During the Cold War, Latin America was a primary focus of US policy. The United States worked diligently to maintain regional hegemony and prevent the spread of communist ideology in the Western Hemisphere. Today, Latin America and the southern border have again become focal points for the current US administration. With the rising influence of China in the region and the ongoing impact of TCOs on American life, the United States must develop deliberate policies and strategies to maintain its hegemonic influence while promoting stability. This strategy should consist of a two-pronged approach that emphasizes both economic investment and regional security. Such an approach could disrupt Chinese influence while fostering a safer and more stable region, ultimately reducing migration northward—a key objective for the current administration. Article, originally written by and published in Small Wars Journal under the title "Same But Different: Cold War Strategy in 21st Century Latin America." Consult here: https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/03/06/same-but-different-cold-war-strategy-in-21st-century-latin-america/. This translation is shared under the same Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 license.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Abstract This departs from an assumption that the EU is an outstanding example of liberal institutionalism. It has been very successful in providing lasting peace for Europeans who are now facing a series of existential challenges.The central hypothesis of this paper is that if these challenges are not addressed effectively, the EU may not survive in the long term.The first part of the analysis explores five external challenges that affected the macroeconomic and political environments of the EU in the third decade of the 21st century.The second part of the analysis signals five internal and more profound challenges the EU must face if it wants to continue in any viable form.The author concludes that the future of the world order and, by extension, the environment of the EU will most likely be decided by three great powers: the US, China, and Russia. Keywords: EU, Great Powers, World Order, US, China, Russia Introduction 2024 is exactly 20 years since the so-called ‘Big Bang enlargement’, which is why the author of this paper takes the liberty of looking at the future of the European Union (EU). The EU is, according to voluminous literature, the best working example of Liberal Institutionalism, which at its very core is about prescribing peace and security. Yet, the EU project seems derailed in the last few years and is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. This lack of internal cohesion is arguably based on several political phenomena: overregulation, ideologisation, and bureaucratisation being the proverbial tip of the iceberg. This paper examines the EU's economic and political environment and then lists five most pressing challenges it must face to survive as an institution. British citizens have already shown the first ‘red card.’ Core external challenges - the macroeconomic and political environments To say that the contemporary world is complex is to state an obvious truism. However, five phenomena should be outlined here as significant variables regarding the EU’s environment. Firstly and most fundamentally, the changes in the international political economy and corresponding structural changes that undermine states’ positions. What we are witnessing is the emergence of non less than the New World Order, which not only challenges the so-called traditional great powers by shifting the centre of gravity to the East but, perhaps most importantly, challenges the position of state actors as ‘shakers and movers’ of the international system. The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution are phenomenal examples of the challenges ahead. Secondly, the ongoing war in Ukraine. Apart from obvious regional European relevance, it should also be analysed globally. Russian invasion threatens principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. If allowed and left unchecked, it encourages other acts of aggression, and in doing so, it confirms a worrying trend according to which the so-called great powers stand above international law. The war draws attention to Ukraine's strategic importance as a large European country. In that sense, the outcome of the conflict will shape the balance of power on the continent. It tests the Western alliance and its response to such challenges. Moreover, it bears global economic consequences—Ukraine & Russia are significant exporters of grain, energy, and raw materials. Prolonged conflict involving these two risks, long-term inflation and food/fuel shortages abroad, is equivalent to the global spread of instability. The Ukrainian-Russian conflict bears an uncanny resemblance to a proxy war between the East and the West competition. An argument could be made that it can be seen as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, where Russia’s victory strengthens authoritarianism abroad. Finally, let us not forget the nuclear aspects of the conflict. A risk of direct Western involvement would raise the threat of nuclear escalation. The outcome could influence nonproliferation norms for security assurance. Thirdly, and partly as a response to the above two phenomena, there comes the question of German leadership/vision of the future of the EU. The vision of the current German cabinet was elaborated on August 24, 2022, by Chancellor Olaf Scholz at Charles University in Prague. It paints a broad picture of the future of the EU at the beginning of the 3rd decade of the 21st century against the backdrop of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Two stand out among the four ‘revolutionary’ ideas mentioned by Scholz. Firstly, given the further enlargement of the European Union for up to 36 states, a transition is urged to majority voting in Common Foreign and Security Policy. Secondly, regarding European sovereignty, the German Chancellor asserts that Europeans grow more autonomous in all fields, assume greater responsibility for their security, work more closely together, and stand yet more united to defend their values and interests worldwide. In practical terms, Scholz indicates the need for one command and control structure for European defence efforts.[1] Fourthly, and again in significant part as a response to the first two phenomena, we are witnessing unprecedented resistance among large sections of European societies. In particular, the now openly verbalised and physically demonstrated dissatisfaction mainly, but not exclusively by the farmers, to the seemingly inevitable plan for the green transition as heralded by the ‘Fit-for-55’. It is a set of proposals to revise and update EU legislation to achieve a target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 [2]. This ambitious initiative includes actions in fourteen areas, from the reform of the EU’s emissions trading system through reducing emissions from transport, buildings, agriculture, and waste to regulation on methane emissions reduction. Effectively, this means that EU farmers will have to accept an unprecedented and unequal burden. On top of that, there is a question of Ukrainian farming products that enter the European market in equally unprecedented quantities. This prompts many farmers to demonstrate their objections towards their governments and the European Commission by blocking capital cities and transportation arteries across the block. The protests are massive in their character, with thousands upon thousands across most EU member states. Political elites in Europe probably had not expected this and possibly have not experienced such a level of dissatisfaction and resistance towards their policies since the creation of the European Union. Farmers have been aided by other professional groups, from truckers to taxi drivers and even ordinary citizens. Notably, the protests are a bottom-up initiative, though they have also drawn the attention of right-wing parties.[3] Last but not least, there is the question of massive immigration to the EU from outside Europe and consequent challenges to social cohesion in countries such as Germany, France, Italy, and Belgium. As of the writing of this paper (2025), more and more members of the societies of Western EU countries challenge the official narrative of their governments based on the assumption that massive immigration is primarily positive for the economies and that large numbers of non-Europeans pose no threat to the quality of life and security of ordinary citizens (the phenomenon referred to earlier by the author of this paper as ‘a-securitisation’ – Sliwinski, 2016).[4] Worse still, the differences between ‘old’ and ‘new’ members of the EU, namely Hungary under Victor Orban, pose a formidable challenge to the immigration policy of the entire EU and, consequently, the future of the EU's integrity. It is not unimaginable at this stage to fathom a day when Hungary, like Britain before, decides to leave the EU,[5] pressured by Brussels and Berlin to accept thousands of immigrants from the Middle East or Africa. Slovakia could follow suit. Core internal challenges – the weakness from within Many of these problems were accidentally quite openly expressed by J. D. Vance, US Vice President, during his speech at the latest Munich Security Conference (February 14th, 2025). Vance did not spare strong criticism directed at European elites and, in a typical ‘American fashion’, called a spade a spade. His criticism of the EU included six general points: retreat from democratic values, censorship and limitations on the freedom of speech, limitations of religious liberties, lack of election integrity, uncontrolled mass migration, and the general unwillingness of the political elites to engage with views other than those of the left and even tendency to suppress dissent.[6] - Centralisation (Federalisation) Today, the EU continues to centralise, particularly in response to challenges like the economic crisis COVID-19, taking on more fiscal policy, health, and security responsibilities. This trend is evident in recent proposals, such as the European Commission’s role in determining budgetary paths, but it faces resistance from member states concerned about losing sovereignty. Historically, the EU has been moving to a federation through recent treaty revisions: The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) to the Treaty of Lisbon (2007). According to Alberto Mingardi from the GIS, there is a so-called ‘creeping power grab’ phenomenon.  “It assumes that Brussels should become more powerful while Rome, Berlin and Paris less so. [...] europhiles tend to look for opportunities that might allow them to give carte blanche to Brussels, albeit beginning with apparently limited endeavours. Hence, the EU is supposed to grow through crises, and thanks to crises, whatever the problem or issue, it could foster a slice of national sovereignty that can be cut and brought up to a higher level. Behind this, there is an overarching belief in the higher efficiency of centralisation, which is perhaps the true landmark of modern politics. Politicians trust themselves more than the taxpayers; they seek a single control room, and the more it controls, the better. This approach fits well with a protectionist outlook of economics, which sees Europe (‘fortress Europe’, as some say) as one trading bloc set to countervail others (the US, China).”[7] The centralisation (federalisation) logic rests heavily on the arguments presented by legalism. On the one hand, it derives from the strict and literal reading of regulations. On the other, it implies that no sphere of life should be left unregulated. Consequently, overregulation has become a characteristic feature of the European Union.[8] Additionally, the overregulation leads to the often cited democratic deficit,[9] exemplified by the fact that the majority of European legislation that EU member states are obliged to follow is proposed by nonelected technocrats working for the European Commission. - Demographic Decline and Social Welfare An ageing population and falling birth rates threaten the EU’s long-term economic stability and social welfare systems. With a shrinking workforce, funding pensions, healthcare, and social services is increasingly difficult, particularly in weaker economies. This demographic shift also amplifies labour shortages, prompting debates over immigration as a solution—yet one that risks further political backlash as it will inevitably affect European identity. According to available data, Europe is the only continent projected to experience population decline until 2070, with the EU's working-age population (20–64 years) expected to decrease by around 20%. Concurrently, the share of older individuals (65 years or older) will be the second highest globally among large economies. This demographic shift poses significant challenges, potentially undermining the EU's economic and social model, exacerbating existing disparities, and creating political divisions among Member States if not adequately addressed.[10] According to Eurostat, The natural population change (difference between live births and deaths) has been negative since 2012. This is primarily due to the ageing population described in this publication and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2022.[11] - Economic Competitiveness and Growth After the so-called Big Bang Enlargement, all available data suggests that the gap between the EU and the US with regards to GDP output has been steadily growing, that is to say, that the US economy, which recently has been experiencing huge problems, still has been developing faster than the EU.[12] Contemporary the EU is grappling with stagnating economic growth and a loss of competitiveness compared to global powers like the United States and China. High regulatory burdens, internal market fragmentation, and insufficient investment in innovation and technology hinder its ability to keep pace. The growing threat of US tariffs under a second Trump administration will only likely exacerbate these issues, disrupting supply chains and increasing costs. Additionally, the EU’s energy dependence—highlighted by the shift away from Russian gas after the Ukraine invasion—has driven up costs, further straining industries and economies, particularly in countries like Germany.[13] - Weakness as an international actor Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine continues to pose a significant security challenge. The conflict has exposed the EU’s reliance on NATO and the US for defence while increasing pressure to bolster its own military capabilities—sometimes referred to as a ‘European Defence Union’. Tensions with China, particularly over trade and technology, and uncertainty about US commitment to transatlantic alliances add to the geopolitical strain. The EU must also address hybrid threats (e.g., cyberattacks, disinformation) targeting critical sectors like energy, transport, and digital infrastructure. In light of this, Americans are already calling for much more input from the European members of NATO regarding their defence budgets (5% of GDP).[14] This will most likely reinvigorate calls for creating a European Army,[15] which no doubt will be dominated by Germany and France. German domination will be met with considerable unease by some Central and Eastern European Countries (members of the EU). At the same time as the recent meeting, Ryiad shows the US is not even treating the EU as a partner worthy of a place at the negotiating table.[16]When pressed by the likes of Trump and charged with not sharing a fair part of their own security costs, European political leaders invoke the notion of Europe as a normative power. Supposedly, though weak militarily, the EU and its members are a beacon of values such as peace, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. In his seminal publications, Iaan Manners, argued that the EU's unique historical context, hybrid political structure, and legal constitution enable it to promote norms that go beyond state-centric concerns, particularly in areas such as human rights and the abolition of the death penalty. Manners claims that the EU's ability to define what is considered 'normal' in world politics is a significant aspect of its power, and this normative approach is crucial for understanding the EU's role in shaping international relations.[17] As nice as it sounds, it does not seem to bear much weight in the practice of international security in recent decades. It is the EU, in fact, as an institution and the political leadership of France, Germany, and the European Commissioner, who stand accused now of contradicting all of the above-mentioned values. The latest visit by President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen to Kiev, and her strong support for the continuation of war against Russia is a case in point.[18]   - Ideologisation 'Europeanism' has become an ideology shared among intellectual, political, judicatory, societal,  and even dominant economic elites that influence or shape the European Union as an institution and its major policies. As an ideology, 'Europeanism' is a somewhat exotic mixture of various seemingly incoherent trends that give the current European Union its intriguing characteristics. On the one hand, economically, one can easily identify numerous elements of neoliberalism, especially regarding the financial aspects of European integration. Likewise, arguments used by the major proponents of European integration vis-à-vis the USA, China, or Japan are of neoliberal character. At the same time, regarding international trade in agricultural products, intellectual property, or internal (single market) competition (freedom of labour), one quickly spots distinct elements of protectionism and overregulation. Finally, regarding philosophical outlook and especially moral issues, 'Europeanism' seems to focus mainly on the progressive agenda and a particular ‘obsession’ with climate change revocation. Conclusion As the Munich Security Conference confirmed, EU political elites are way out of touch with reality and a rapidly changing world. Their proverbial Europocentrism is based on, among others, self-precepted moral high grounds, a history of economic and political domination and exploitation, and an undiscerning belief in bureaucratic, if not technocratic, policy-making and regulation of every sphere of life and institutionalism. Their weakness is probably most accurately depicted by the reaction of the Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, Christoph Heusgen, who broke down during his closing remarks, unable to finish his speech.[19] He was patted on the back and given a hug. (This reaction must have undoubtedly caused bewilderment, if not pity, in Washinton, Beijing, and Moscow.) The original integration goals have little to do with today’s Eureaucrats’ obsessions with saving the planet or pushing for Diversity, Equality, and Inclusivity (DEI). With the election of Donald Trump, the world of the ‘Davos Men’ seems to be stalled. Interestingly, the EU is now one of the last standing actors to represent the ideology of globalism, with its tenets based on neoliberalism - unlimited free trade and the capturing role of international transnational companies. The rest of the world, including the US, seems to be moving in the opposite direction – the world driven by state actors. The world order, therefore, is likely to be directed by strong and nationally based governments from no, possibly the US, China and Russia – a ‘Concert of Powers’ of sorts. References ________________________________________[1] The Federal Government (2022) Speech By Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz at The Charles University In Prague On Monday, August 29 2022. Available at: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/scholz-speech-prague-charles-university-2080752[2] “Fit for 55”, European Council. Council of the European Union. European Green Deal. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/[3] Tanno, Sophie and Liakos, Chris. “Farmers’ protests have erupted across Europe. Here’s why.” CNN, World, Europe. Last modified February 10, 2024. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/03/europe/europe-farmers-protests-explainer-intl/index.html[4] Sliwinski, Krzysztof. “‘A-Securitization’ of Immigration Policy - the Case of European Union.” Asia–Pacific Journal of EU Studies 14, no. 1: 25 -56.[5] Körömi, Csongor. “Hungary reveals plan to send asylum-seekers to Brussels.” Politico August 22. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-asylum-plan-brussels-migration-refugees-gergely-gulyas/[6] Pangambam, S. “Full Transcript: VP JD Vance. Remarks at the Munich Security Conference”. The SIngju Post. https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-vp-jd-vance-remarks-at-the-munich-security-conference/?singlepage=1[7] Mingardi, Alberto, “The EU’s future: Like Switzerland or more like Italy?”GIS, May 20, 2022. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/eu-future/ see also: Dunleavy, P., and G. Kirchgässner. “Explaining the Centralization of the European Union: A Public Choice Analysis.” Edited by P. Moser, G. Schneider, and G. Kirchgässner. Decision Rules in the European Union, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62792-9_7.[8] Van Malleghem, Pieter-Augustijn. “Legalism and the European Union’s Rule of Law Crisis.” European Law Open 3, no. 1 (2024): 50–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2024.5.[9] Neuhold, C. Democratic Deficit in the European Union, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228637.013.1141.[10] Zalai, Csaba. “Too Little Too Late?” Európai Tükör 27, no. 1 (December 13, 2024): 169–93. https://doi.org/10.32559/et.2024.1.9.[11] See more at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/interactive-publications/demography-2024#population-change[12] See more at: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/wld/world/gdp-gross-domestic-product[13] See more at: https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/global-outlook-2025-the-impact-of-a-new-US-presidency?utm_campaign=MA00001133&utm_medium=paid-search&utm_source=eiu-google&utm_content=&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA8fW9BhC8ARIsACwHqYqwk_M8I--YkZ_fiDS6leiOiRLjPXlG63SHjKwQZgP2kaovx_sc4qIaAkGYEALw_wcB[14] See more at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/trump-says-nato-members-should-spend-5-of-gdp-on-defence/ and https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-tells-allies-spend-5-percent-gdp-defense-nato/[15] See more at: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgl27x74wpo[16] See more at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-russia-meeting-improving-relations-ukraine-war/[17] Manners, Ian. "Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?" Journal of Common Market Studies 40, no. 2 (2002): 235–58. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.[18] See more at: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/24/ursula-von-der-leyen-arrives-in-kyiv-with-35-billion-in-fresh-aid-for-weapons[19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhNy0u5-ijY

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском War is a numbers game. Each side involved must marshal the supplies, troops and firepower needed to sustain the fight, thwart advancing armies and, hopefully, prevail. But it’s also a game of uncertainty. For the past three years, Ukraine’s military planners have had to approach every battle with a series of cold calculations: How much ammunition is left? How many air defense interceptors can be fired today, without running short tomorrow? Do we have the men and equipment needed to advance or hold position? But now, with U.S. military assistance on hold and European support constrained by economic realities, that uncertainty is growing. As an expert on warfare, I know this isn’t just a logistical problem; it’s a strategic one. When commanders can’t predict their future resource base, they are forced to take fewer risks, prioritize defense over offense and hedge against worst-case scenarios. In war, uncertainty doesn’t just limit options. It shapes the entire battlefield and fate of nations. Trump orders a pause On March 3, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a suspension to all U.S. military aid to Ukraine. It followed a fractious Oval Office meeting between the U.S. president and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, after which Trump declared the Ukrainian leader “not ready for peace.” Two days later, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe announced Washington was also pausing all intelligence sharing and ordered key allies such as the United Kingdom to limit the information they give Kyiv. National security adviser Michael Waltz has linked the pause to ongoing U.S.-Ukrainian negotiations, stating that weapons supplies and intelligence sharing will resume once Ukraine agrees to a date for peace talks with Russia. A critical supplier of weapons Any pause, no matter how long, will hurt Ukraine. The U.S. has been the largest provider of military assistance to Kyiv since Russia’s 2022 invasion, followed by the European Union. While the level of support is debated – it is often skewed by how one calculates equipment donations using presidential drawdown authority, through which the president can dip into the Department of Defense’s inventory – the U.S. has undoubtedly delivered critical weapons systems and a wide range of ammunition. Though this assistance has decreased U.S. military stockpiles, it has helped Washington invest in its domestic defense industry and expand weapons production. In addition, while Europe is starting to increase its own defense expenditures, EU members are stuck with flat economic growth and limits on how much they can borrow to invest in their own militaries, much less Ukraine. This makes the U.S. a critical partner for Ukraine for at least another two years while Europe expands its military capacity. These conditions affect the design of Ukraine’s military campaigns. Planners in Kyiv have to balance predictions about the enemy’s strengths and possible courses of action with assessments of their own resources. This war ledger helps evaluate where to attack and where to defend. Uncertainty skews such calculation. The less certain a military command is about its resource base, the more precarious bold military maneuvers become. It is through this fog of uncertainty that any pause in assistance shapes the course of the war in Ukraine and the bargaining leverage of all parties at the negotiating table. A new uncertain world The White House has indicated that the pause in military aid and intelligence sharing will be lifted once a date for peace talks is set. But even if U.S. weapons and intel begin to flow again, Ukrainian generals will have to fight the duration of the war under the knowledge that its greatest backer is willing to turn off the taps when it suits them. And the consequences of this new uncertain world will be felt on the battlefield. Ukraine now faces a brutal trade-off: stretch limited resources to maintain an active defense across the front, or consolidate forces, cede ground and absorb the political costs of trading space for time. Material supply has shaped operational tempo over the course of the war. When Moscow expects Kyiv to be low on ammunition, it presses the attack. In fact, key Russian gains in eastern Ukraine in 2024 coincided with periods of critical supply shortages. Russia used its advantage in artillery shells, which at times saw Moscow firing 20 artillery shells to every Ukrainian artillery shell fired, and air superiority to make advances north and west of the strategic city of Avdiivka. Looking to the front lines in 2025, Russia could use any pause in supplies to support its ongoing offensive operations that stretch from Kherson in southern Ukraine to Kharkiv in the north and efforts to dislodge Ukrainian units in the Russian Kursk region. This means Ukraine will have to decide where to hold the line and where to conduct a series of delaying actions designed to wear down Russian forces. Trading space for time is an old military tactic, but it produces tremendous political costs when the terrain is your sovereign territory. As such, the military logic of delaying actions creates political risks in Ukraine – sapping civilian morale and undermining support for the government’s war management. A horrible choice This dilemma will drive where and how Ukraine weights its efforts on the battlefield. First, long-range strike operations against Russia will become increasingly less attractive. Every drone that hits an oil refinery in Russia is one less warhead stopping a Russian breakthrough in the Donbas or counterattack in Kursk. Ukraine will have to reduce the complexity of its defensive campaign and fall back along lines deeper within its own territory. Second, Russia doesn’t fight just on the battlefield – it uses a coercive air campaign to gain leverage at the negotiating table. With U.S. military aid on hold, Moscow has a prime opportunity to escalate its strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, forcing Kyiv into painful choices about whether to defend its front lines or its political center of gravity. From Vietnam to Ukraine, airpower has historically been a key bargaining tool in negotiations. President Richard Nixon bombed North Vietnam to force concessions. Russia may now do the same to Ukraine. Seen in this light, Russia could intensify its missile and drone campaign against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure – both to weaken defenses and to apply psychological and economic pressure. And because Kyiv relies on Western assistance, including intelligence and systems such as U.S.-built Patriot surface-to-air missiles to defend its skies, this coercive campaign could become effective. As a result, Ukraine could be faced with a horrible choice. It may have to concentrate dwindling air defenses around either key military assets required to defend the front or its political center of gravity in Kyiv. Interception rates of Russian drones and missiles could drop, leading to either opportunities for a Russian breakout along the front or increased civilian deaths that put domestic pressure on Ukrainian negotiators. Uncertainty reigns supreme The real problem for Ukraine going forward is that even if the U.S. resumes support and intelligence sharing, the damage is done. Uncertainty, once introduced, is hard to remove. It increases the likelihood that Ukraine’s leaders will stockpile munitions to reduce the risk of future pauses, rather than use them to take the fight to Russia. And with battlefield decision-making now limited, Ukraine’s military strategists will increasingly look toward the least worst option to hold the line until a lasting peace is negotiated.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program has been an ever-present vexation in Western political discourse since its full extent was first revealed in 2002. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United Nations Security Council, United States of America, European Union, and Israel have employed an ever-widening and steadily-strengthening combination of negotiations, sanctions, and threats in attempts to rein in Iran’s atomic ambitions. Yet, and the severe impact of international actions upon on their nation’s economy notwithstanding, the Islamic Republic’s leaders have not been persuaded to limit the scope of nuclear activities or grant the IAEA enhanced oversight of the program.[1] Not always placed within the context of the Islamic Republic’s actions is that Iran’s nuclear quest began in 1973 while Iran was a Cold War ally of the US. The seeds had been sown more than a decade earlier, when the Tehran Research Reactor was provided by Washington in 1959. Then, as now, it seems Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons capability in tandem with and under the guise of a civilian nuclear program.[2] Much like the ayatollahs today, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi denied such intentions – claiming Iran was only pursuing nuclear energy in accordance with its rights as a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). So, re-examining motivations and developments from before the Islamic Revolution can cast light upon contemporary events despite differences between the two Iranian regimes. The Shah’s Intensions During the 1970s just as now, Iran’s quest to become a nuclear power was rooted at least partially in the regional dynamics of its location between South Asia and the Middle East. The shah envisioned his nuclear program as a response to atomic efforts by India, Pakistan, and Israel. He even hinted in June 1974 that the national security of Iran may be best served by possessing a nuclear deterrent: “If in this region each little country tries to arm itself with armaments that are precarious, even elementary, but nuclear, then perhaps the national interests of any country at all would demand it do the same.” The shah did add, to placate his international allies, “But I would find that completely ridiculous.”[3] Nonetheless, other nations were suspicious based on imperial Iran’s growing appetite for sophisticated weapons and the shah’s harkening back to the nation’s historical hegemony. So the possibility of Iran harboring nuclear weapons ambitions came sharply into international focus when the shah asserted that possibility to a French journalist in June 1974. Asked if Iran would one day possess a nuclear weapon like India had just one month previously, the shah declared: “Without any doubt, and sooner than one would think.”[4] Nuclear weapons require sophisticated targeting and delivery systems. At the present, with years of sanctions in place, the regular Iranian Navy and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) counterpart have been forced to innovate, rather successfully, in domestically enhancing maritime nuclear warfare capabilities.[5] In January 1975, however, the shah sought to purchase such nuclear-capable technology. Seeking to push through a deal for nuclear submarines from France, Iranian negotiators even claimed the administration in Washington had “been hinting that the U. S. might sell them.” US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger learned of this from French Presidential Secretary General Pierre Brousalette. Understandably concerned, Kissinger responded pointedly and repeatedly that the Iranian claim was “inconceivable … I’m 99.9% sure.”[6] Purchasing nuclear submarines would violate the multi-billion dollar US-Iran arms agreement forged in May 1972 when President Richard Nixon allowed the shah to purchase any weapons he wished from the US short of nuclear weapons and associated technology. Another warning sign was spotted in May 1975 when the shah sought to purchase six battalions of Lance surface-to-surface missiles from Washington. The US administration under President Gerald Ford worked through Secretary of State Kissinger to discourage Iran’s plan because “DOD [Department of Defense] does not consider the Lance a cost-effective weapon when used with a conventional warhead. Congressional critics of our arms sales to Iran would tend to link Iran’s purchase of the Lance with its nuclear development plans.”[7] Again, the parallel with modern day developments as the IRGC produces and seek to purchase missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads should not be overlooked.[8] Offers and Counter-Offers Undeterred by mounting international concern over his nuclear program, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi even proposed acquiring six to eight reactors from American suppliers plus more from French and German companies. His stated aim was to meet domestic energy requirements through atomic fission thereby reserving Iran’s petrochemical wealth for export to energy-hungry foreigners. At first glance, the proposal seemed like a win-win situation for everyone. Moreover, as the US government’s production of enriched nuclear fuel began reaching full capacity and plans were made to assemble a private sector consortium to add further capacity, the shah offered to purchase a 30 percent stake. The gesture was significant, as other interested parties had proven reluctant to commit significant funds. Iran eventually loaned US $1.18 billion to the French Atomic Energy Commission and was slated to acquire a 10 percent stake in the French Eurodif uranium enrichment plant. Although that stake did not materialize, the Islamic Republic remains an indirect investor through a Franco-Iranian consortium.[9] At that time during the Ford Administration (1974–1977), however, alarm in Washington over nuclear proliferation resulted in a provision that Tehran would have to relinquish reprocessing of atomic fuel to a multilateral conglomerate or allow direct American oversight within Iran.[10] The shah denounced those conditions as discriminatory because Iran was a member of the NPT and therefore entitled to nuclear technology for civilian purposes. The situation bears an uncanny resemblance specifically to events in 2009 when the fuel swap proposal from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany failed to win Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s approval and broadly to the vexed history of failed attempts at nuclear safeguards for Iran.[11] The IAEA, US, and EU estimate that the Islamic Republic’s stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium far exceeds needs of the Tehran medical research reactor for many years to come.[12] Likewise, during the Ford Administration, the US Department of State reported that the shah’s planned electricity generating capacity of 23,000 megawatts went well beyond all projections of Iran’s domestic energy needs. The report therefore concluded that Iran’s motives were “not entirely clear” and seemed to be propelled at least in part by a desire to develop nuclear weapons.[13] As a result, negotiations continued to falter over the reprocessing issue until President Jimmy Carter reached a provisional agreement on the issue with the shah in 1978. Yet, whether the shah would have honored the agreement will never be known for he was overthrown the following year. It is likely, however, that Iran would have ended up confronting the West generally and the US specifically over its nuclear program even if the shah had remained on the throne and continued to be an American ally. Indeed, the shah’s thinly-masked quest for nuclear power was apparent to officials who served him, even as Western governments remained uncertain of the end game as they now seem to be with the ayatollahs. Minister of Court Asadollah Alam wrote in his diary on 29 November 1975 that the shah’s scheme “though he denies it, probably includes our manufacturing of a nuclear deterrent.”[14] Akbar Etemad, the shah’s chief atomic energy adviser, was more definitive when interviewed after the Pahlavi dynasty had been ousted: “I always suspected that part of the shah’s plan was to build [nuclear] bombs.”[15] The Ayatollahs’ Aims Having experienced colossal military and civilian causalities during the Iraqi-triggered border war from 1980 and 1988, Iran’s leadership concluded that survival of their nation and regime were paramount. Like the shah before them, the ayatollahs turned to a nuclear program in the hope of assuaging those concerns. After the Islamic Republic reluctantly agreed to termination of hostilities with Iraq, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani laid the groundwork for the nuclear program’s recommencement. Even religious ideals which regarded nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction as haram or prohibited were cast aside. Speaking to the IRGC in October 1988, while serving as Speaker of Parliament, Rafsanjani advocated developing weapons of mass destruction “because the need for such armaments was made very clear during the [Iran-Iraq] war … [so] we should fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defense use of chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons.”[16] Once a political consensus had been achieved in late 1988, Mohsen Rezai who commanded the IRGC, and now serves as Secretary of the Expediency Guidance Council, wrote to then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini requesting both religious endorsement and administrative permission for the revolutionary guards to initiate a nuclear weapons program. Mir Hossein Mousavi who served as Iran’s Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989 supported the request by Rezai and the campaign by Rafsanjani.[17] Although Supreme Leader Khomeini had initially been opposed to the atom’s might, they were able to sway Iran’s revolutionary founder into agreeing that “We have nothing against setting up atomic installations.”[18] So the Islamic Republic commenced fledgling steps toward nuclear power. Subsequently as two-term president of Iran from 1989 to 1997, Rafsanjani ensured Iran fully resumed its quest toward nuclearization. His presidential successors Seyyed Mohammad Khatami who held office from 1997 to 2005 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has been in office since 2005 continued the energy and weapon programs set up by Rafsanjani, Rezai, and Mousavi. Khatami did suspend uranium enrichment in 2003 hoping to improve relations with the US, but legislative elections in 2004 saw resurgence of hardliners on the Iranian political scene and a recommitment to atomic goals.[19] Over the next two decades the Islamic Republic turned not only to its pre-revolutionary technology but also to foreign sources including A. Q. Khan’s illicit Pakistan-based network, North Korea, and the People’s Republic of China as it steadily built-up domestic nuclear capacity. On the political and ideological fronts, a convergence of self-preservation, nationalism, and suspicion of the West leads many Iranian leaders to embrace nuclear ambitions. Hence, like the Pahlavi dynast before it, the Islamic Republic of Iran is unlikely to abandon either nuclear power or the possibility of weaponization.[20] Indeed, negative responses to Ahmadinejad’s attempt to reach a nuclear fuel swap deal with the West in late 2009 are highly instructive. “The discussions in Geneva were really surprising … the hard work of thousands of [our] scientists would be ruined,” lamented Mousavi. Unsuccessful presidential candidate Seyyed Mehdi Karroubi accused Ahmadinejad’s administration of “trying to change its policies” rather than “observing national and religious interests.” Not to be outdone by other politicians, Iran’s Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani claimed that “Westerners are insisting in a direction that suggests cheating us out of our nuclear rights.” Sensing the overall pro-nuclear sentiment within his administration, Supreme Leader Khamenei then expressed distain for compromise: “When we carefully look at the situation, we notice that they [the U.S. and its allies] are hiding a dagger behind their back.”[21] Present Mimics the Past with Graver Dangers Yet, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently denied it seeks anything more than nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But Supreme Leader Khamenei’s unconvincing words that “We do not have nuclear weapons, and we do not intend to produce them,” are reminiscent of those by the last shah and his diplomats that “Iran is not thinking of building atomic weapons.” Such statements are directed at defusing the brewing storm in Washington, London, and Jerusalem rather than for domestic policy-makers, however. Indeed, and contrary to claims of peaceful intentions, Khamenei has threatened repeatedly by declaring “Iran will respond with the same level of power,” the shah’s regime too left open the possibility of assembling nuclear warheads by claiming “the regime may revise its policy if other non-nuclear nations do.”[22] There is an essential difference in such rhetoric, however, for the shah was not threating the US, EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other nation with preemptive or retaliatory attacks nor sponsoring terrorism. So unlike the shah, much of the pressure Iran faces is a direct consequence of the confrontational positions taken by its leaders.  Nuclear weapons fitted well with the shah’s ideas of deterring external adversaries and strengthening his hold on power at home, just as similar ideas motivate the ayatollahs who run the Islamic Republic to continue enhancing their nuclear program. If the shah’s pattern of obfuscation between 1973 and 1979 is any indicator, it is unlikely that Iran’s current leaders will meet NPT obligations – even at great socio-economic cost to their citizens and fever-pitch global consternation. Worse, unlike the royal regime whose tyranny inside Iran set a model for that of the Shi‘ite clergymen, the Islamic Republic has come to be associated with threats and violence beyond its borders directed against nations and persons perceived as foes of theocratic rule. Moreover, unlike the shah, the Muslim theocrats who now govern seek to export their intolerant brand of fundamentalism to other nations with an avowed goal of “leading the world.” Equally problematic, they speak of “sharing nuclear knowledge and technology” – thereby further undermining the NPT and possibly even global stability.[23] For the ayatollahs who hold power by force at home and seek to dominate the world stage through terror abroad, nuclear weapons would serve as the ultimate deterrent against punitive consequences, international adversaries, and externally-imposed regime change. Consequently, as the shah did in the 1970s, Iran’s current leaders undoubtedly view acquisition of nuclear technology as a self-servingly rational decision even at the expense of alienating Iran from other countries.[24] Western nations, like Iran’s Arab and Israeli neighbors, were wary of the shah’s motives. Now they are downright fearful of the ayatollahs’ intentions. Even the US with its formidable military resources may only be able to set back Iran’s nuclear plans by a few years if Washington feels compelled to attack. The basic dilemma confronting nations that seek to halt the Islamic Republic’s progress toward atomic power is that rational choices do not always indicate levelheaded decision-makers. Like the shah before them, the ayatollahs resort to political paranoia on the domestic and international fronts as part of their rationale for espousing nuclear technology.[25] Yet unlike the shah’s program coming to a halt through regime change, those opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran reaching and crossing the nuclear threshold cannot place hope on a new government emerging in Tehran anytime in the near future. The text of this work is licensed under  a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license.  For proper attribution, please refer to the original source. [1]. Jamsheed K. Choksy, “More Documentation of Iran’s Relentless Pursuit of Nukes,” Forbes (7 November 2011), http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/11/07/more-documentation-of-irans-relentless-pursuit-of-nukes/. [2]. Abbas Milani, “The Shah’s Atomic Dreams,” Foreign Policy (29 December 2010), http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/29/the_shahs_atomic_dreams. [3] . US Department of Defense, “US Embassy Paris Cable 15445 to Department of State, Further Remarks by Shah on Nuclear Weapons,” (25 June 1974), http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb268/doc01b.pdf. [4]. US Department of Defense, “US Embassy Paris Cable 15305 to Department of State, Interview with Shah,” (24 June 1974), http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb268/doc01a.pdf. [5]. Jamsheed K. Choksy, “Why Iran’s Blue-Water Naval Ambition Matters,” The American Interest, (5 August 2011), http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/middleeast/2011/08/05/why-irans-blue-water-naval-ambition-matters/. [6]. US Department of State, “Teleconference: Henry Kissinger and Pierre Brousalette, KA13128,” (8 January 1975), http://foia.state.gov/documents/kissinger/0000D9F4.pdf. [7]. The Digital National Security Archive, “Sidney Sober, Your Meeting with the Shah at Blair House, Confidential Briefing Memorandum to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,” (9 May 1975), http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a6_1181429741. [8]. Michael Elleman, “Iran’s Ballistic Missile Program,” Iran Primer (Washington, DC: US Institute for Peace, 2012), http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-program. [9]. Oliver Meier, “Iran and Foreign Enrichment: A Troubled Model,” Arms Control Association (January/February 2006), http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IranEnrich. [10]. William Burr, “The History of Iran’s Nuclear Energy Program,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (19 January 2009), http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-history-of-irans-nuclear-energy-program. [11]. Arms Control Association, “History of Official Proposals on the Iranian Nuclear Issue,” (last updated March 2012), http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals. [12]. Olli Heinonen, “The 20 Percent Solution,” Foreign Policy (11 January 2012), http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/11/the_20_percent_solution?page=full. [13]. William Burr, “A Brief History of US-Iranian Nuclear Negotiations,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 65 (January 2009), pp. 24–25, http://bos.sagepub.com/content/65/1/21.full. [14]. Asadollah Alam, The Shah and I: The Confidential Diary of Iran’s Royal Court, 1969–1977 (London: I. B. Tauris, 1993) p. 453, http://www.amazon.com/Shah-Confidential-Diary-Irans-1968-77/dp/1845113721#reader_1845113721. [15]. Maziar Bahari, “The Shah’s Plan was to Build Bombs: Interview with Akbar Etemad,” New Statesman (11 September 2008), http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2008/09/iran-nuclear-shah-west. [16]. Institute for Science and International Security, “Nuclear Iran: Nuclear History,” http://www.isisnucleariran.org/nuclear-history. For a similar statement in December 2001, see Kasra Naji, Ahmadinejad: The Secret History of Iran’s Radical Leader (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), pp. 118–119, http://www.amazon.com/Ahmadinejad-Secret-History-Radical-Leader/dp/0520256638#reader_0520256638. [17]. Erich Follath and Holger Stark, “The Birth of a Bomb: A History of Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions,” Der Spiegel (17 June 2010), http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-701109,00.html; and Naji, Ahmadinejad, p. 117. [18]. Harold J. Salemson and Tony Hendra, eds., Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini: Political, Philosophical, Social, and Religious (New York: Bantam Books, 1985), p. 17; and Naji, Ahmadinejad, p. 117. [19]. Karl Vick, “Iran’s Gray Area on Nuclear Arms,” Washington Post (21 June 2006), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001584.html; and Naji, Ahmadinejad, p. 119; and Ray Takeyh, Guardians of the Revolution: Iran and the World in the Age of the Ayatollahs (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 247. [20]. Jamsheed K. Choksy and Carol E. B. Choksy, “A Nuclear Iran is Inevitable,” Forbes (19 March 2010), http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/19/iran-nuclear-sanctions-opinions-contributors-jamsheed-and-carol-choksy_2.html. [21]. Reported by Khaleej Times (29 October 2009), http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2009/October/middleeast_October795.xml§ion=middleeast; Yahoo News (8 November 2009), http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091108/wl_nm/us_iran_karoubi; Press TV (24 October 2009), http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=109516§ionid=351020104; and Washington Post (4 November 2009), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110301397.html?sub=AR. [22]. US Department of Defense, “US Embassy Tehran Cable 5192 to Department of State, Shah’s Alleged Statement on Nuclear Weapons,” (25 June 1974), http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb268/doc01c.pdf; and Mehr News Agency, “Iran will Respond to Any Attack at ‘Same Level’: Leader,” (20 May 2012), http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1562963. [23]. Jamsheed K. Choksy, “Iran’s Global Ambitions – Part I,” Yale Global (13 September 2010), http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/irans-global-ambitions-part-i. [24]. Fareed Zakaria, “Interview with Gen. Martin Dempsey,” CNN GPS (19 February 2012), http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/19/fzgps.01.html. [25]. Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), pp. 111–131; reprinted as “The Paranoid Style in Iranian Politics,” Frontline: Tehran Bureau (27 August 2009), http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/08/the-paranoid-style-in-iranian-politics.html.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском I. Introduction Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. As the invasion enters its third year, its most immediate and visible consequences have been loss of life and large numbers of refugees from Ukraine. However, given the interconnected structure of the international political, economic, and policy systems, the ramifications of the conflict can be felt well beyond Ukraine and Russia.Much of the recent literature and commentaries have focused on the military and strategic lessons learned from the ongoing Ukraine conflict (Biddle 2022; 2023; Dijkstra et al. 2023). However, the conflict has potentially much wider global consequences for various policy areas. Robert Jervis noted that the international system is not only interconnected but also often displays nonlinear relationships and that “outcomes cannot be understood without adding together the units or their relations.” (Jervis 1997, 6).  This article focuses on the economic effects of the Ukraine war, emphasizing the energy issue, because Russia has been a major player in the global energy market.  II. Literature on the effects of wars Wars have the potential to alter the parties and “transform the future” of belligerents (Ikle 1991), they also bring about fundamental changes to the international system (Gilpin 1981).  Scholars in Economics have provided considerable analysis of the macroeconomic effects of a conflict across spatial levels: locally, nationally, regionally and internationally. Studies have examined the effects of specific wars such as the Syrian civil war (Kešeljević and Spruk, 2023) or the Iraq war (Bilmes and Stiglitz 2006). They have also examined the effects of war in general. For instance, Reuven Glick and Alan Taylor (2010) examine bilateral trade relations from 1870 to 1997 and find “large and persistent impacts of wars on trade, and hence on national and global economic welfare.” Similarly, Vally Koubi (2005) investigates the effects of inter- and intrastate wars on a sample of countries and finds that the combined pre-war contemporaneous and postwar effects on economic growth are negative.  A “war ruin” school emphasizes that the destruction caused by wars is accompanied by higher inflation, unproductive resource spending on the military, and war debt (Chan 1985; Diehl and Goertz 1985; Russett 1970). By contrast, a “war renewal” school argued that there could be longer-term positive economic effects from war because war can lead to increased efficiency in the economy by reducing the power of rent-seeking special interests, triggering technological innovation, and advancing human capital (Olson 1982; Organski and Kugler 1980). Early analysis estimated that the Russian invasion of Ukraine had an economic cost of 1% of global GDP in 2022 (Liadze et al. 2023)Some political scientists focused on the domestic consequences of war. For example, Electoral political scientists have often examined the effects of war on public opinion. A key concern has been whether war produces a “rally around the flag effects” to bolster the support of incumbent leaders – or whether war weariness can contribute to declining support for governments, including those governments committed to conflicts abroad. John Mueller (1970) was the first scholar to develop the concept of the “rally-round-the-flag”, with later scholars identifying some of the factors that may shape or mitigate the effect (Dinesen and Jaeger 2013). Kseniya Kizilova and Pippa Norris (2023) considered any rally effects during the first few months of the Ukraine war. They claim that the reason that motivated Putin’s military invasion was an attempt to boost popular support among the Russian electorate. They show evidence of a surge in support for Putin following the invasion, which persisted longer than usual in democratic systems. However, Kizilova and Norris question whether this will likely be sustained as the economic costs of the war increase.   III. Brief Summary of the Ukraine War The roots of the Ukraine war go back to the early 1990s when Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union. While the Ukrainian economy was still firmly tied to the Russian economy, the country shifted its political focus towards the EU and NATO. This shift culminated in the Orange Revolution 2004 and the “Euromaidan” demonstrations in 2013. Portraying the “Euromaidan” protests as a Western-backed coup, Russia invaded Crimea and declared the annexation of Crimea into Russia in March 2014. Conflict soon erupted in the Eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, where Russia supported pro-Russian separatist forces (Walker 2023a). Despite attempts to negotiate a ceasefire through the Minsk Agreement I and II, the conflict in the Eastern part of Ukraine had continued (Walker 2023a), resulting in over 14,000 deaths between 2014 and 2021. Against this backdrop, on 21 February, 2022, Russia recognized the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Three days later, confounding most Western observer’s expectations, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, calling it a “special military operation”. During the initial weeks, Russia made substantial advances (CIA Fact-book 2024) but failed to take Kyiv in the face of strong Ukrainian resistance supported by Western allies. In October 2022, Russia declared the annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (even though they were not entirely under Russian control) (Walker 2023b). As of February 2025, the meeting between the US and Russia to end the war is underway. IV. The Effects of the Ukraine war The impacts of war are far-reaching and devastating. War causes immense destruction of property and loss of life. It also creates psychological trauma for those who have experienced it firsthand. War can also have long-term economic impacts, such as increased unemployment and poverty. War can also lead to the displacement of people, as we have seen the millions of refugees who have been forced to flee their homes due to conflicts. War can also have political effects, such as creating new states or weakening existing nations. It can also lead to the rise of authoritarian regimes in many post-war nations. War can also increase militarization as nations seek to protect themselves from future conflicts.  Regarding the effects of the Ukraine war, Bin Zhang and Sheripzhan Nadyrov (2024) claimed that in addition to inexpressible human suffering and the destruction of infrastructure, the economic and financial damage inflicted on European countries would be profound, especially in the context of rising inflation. The positive changes due to the conflict may occur in four areas: acceleration of the Green Deal, increased European attention to defense, improved prospects for individual countries to join the European Union (EU), and the unfolding of broader Eurasian economic integration.  The Ukraine war might have broader economic consequences. The supply chains may be affected because of the destruction of infrastructures and resources. War mobilization may affect the workforce and economic production. Actors in the economy may also act strategically to deploy resources elsewhere, to support the war effort or because the war has affected incentive structures or decide to cease production altogether because of expected losses. These effects can be local to geographical areas engulfed in conflict but also cause ripple effects to a broader regional area and the global economy. Trade, production, consumption, inflation, growth and employment patterns may all be influenced.  Figure 1: Global implications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the European and World Economies. Source: Peterson K. Ozili. (2022)  Ozili (2022) claimed that the scale of the Ukraine war had a negative impact on the economies of almost all countries around the world. As Figure 1 shows, the main effects of the Ukraine war on the global economy are: Rising Oil and Gas Prices – European countries import about a quarter of their oil and 40% of their natural gas from the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation is the second largest oil producer in the world and the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe. After the invasion, European oil companies will have problems getting these resources from the Russian Federation. Even before the Russian invasion, oil prices rose because of growing tensions between countries, the COVID-19 pandemic, and other factors, but remained in the $80–95 per barrel range. After the invasion, this price reached $100 and could reach $140. Natural gas prices have risen 20% since the war began. Rising gas prices can drive high inflation and increase public utility bills.  Decline in production and economic growth, rising global inflation, and the cost of living are more related to the consequences of the above-mentioned factors, especially rising oil and gas prices, which lead to high inflation and, therefore, a decline in supply and demand.  Impact on the global banking system: This factor’s negative effect will be felt more strongly by Russian banks and is associated with international financial sanctions. Foreign banks that will suffer significant damage from sanctions are those that have conducted large operations in the Russian Federation.  The Russian Federation’s export ban and its own counter-ban on imports of foreign products disrupted the global supply chain, resulting in shortages and higher prices for imported commodities. As Ozili (2022) claimed, higher inflation is a perceived negative consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Figure 2 shows, inflation in the EU jumped in the first month of the invasion, and the increasing trend continues. EU inflation in 2022 peaked in October and amounted to 11.5%, a historical record. However, inflation has slowly declined as energy prices have gone down.  This higher inflation in Europe resulted from an increase in energy prices. As Figures 3, 4, and 5 show, energy prices in Europe skyrocketed in 2022. As Figure 3 shows, energy prices have been the most important component of inflation in the EU. Figure 2: Average inflation rate in the EU (%). Source: EurostatCreated with Datawrapper   Figure 3: Main components of inflation rate in the Euro areas.  Figure 4: Natural gas prices in Europe, January 2021- end 2024  Figure 5: Crude oil price, January 2020-January 2025 Source: Eurostat Created with Datawrapper As Figure 6 shows, the inflation rate in major EU countries such as Germany and France followed the pattern of EU countries in which inflation skyrocketed in 2022 and then slowly declined over time. Figure 6: Inflation rate in major EU countries. Source: Eurostat Created with Datawrapper  As Ozili claimed, a lower growth rate was also a perceived negative consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Figure 7 shows, GDP in the EU was down to 3.5 % in 2022 compared to 6.3% in 2021, and it was further down to 0.8 % in 2023 because economic stagnation and high inflation caused by the Ukraine war impacted European economies. The European Commission forecasts that the European economy will grow by 0.9 % in 2024 and 1.5% in 2025.  Figure 7: Average annual GDP growth rate in EU, 1996-2025. Following the pattern of entire EU countries, growth rates in four big European countries declined in 2022 & 2023 after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and are expected to grow moderately in 2024. The growth rates in four big European countries are in Table 1 and Figures 8-11.    Figure 8: Growth rate in Germany  Figure 9: Growth rate in France  Figure 10: Growth rate in the UK   Figure 11: Growth rate in Italy    Regarding the effect of the Ukraine war on the global banking system, the effect was minimal because most international financial sanctions targeted Russian banks. The sanctions, including the ban of selected Russian banks from SWIFT, only affected foreign banks with significant operations in Russia. Many foreign banks experienced losses after several Western countries imposed financial sanctions on Russian banks, the Russian Central Bank, and wealthy Russian individuals. The most affected banks were Austria’s Raiffeisenbank, Italy’s Unicredit, and France’s Société Générale. Other foreign banks recorded huge losses when they discontinued their operations in Russia. The losses were significant for small foreign banks and insignificant for large foreign banks.  After almost 20 months into the full-scale war, Ukraine’s banking sector continued demonstrating remarkable resilience and functioning as the backbone of the real economy. No bank runs have occurred, and access to cash was maintained. In addition to crucial reforms since 2014, comprehensive measures by the National Bank of Ukraine and a strong level of digitalization are key reasons for the observed stability. However, a significant liquidity buffer is not only a sign of resilience. It also reveals a lack of lending. The bank loan portfolio declined by around 30% compared to pre-war levels in real terms.  Regarding the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on European stock markets, Figures 12 and 13 show the movement of the FTSE 100 and Euro Area Stock Market Index (EU50). As seen from Figures 12 & 13, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, both indices showed a noticeable decline in 2022, particularly early 2022. However, both indexes showed a noticeable rise after late 2022. Although there were ups and downs in both indices in 2023 and 2024, they show upward movement from 2023 to 2025.  Figure 12: The FTSE 100 index in Europe  Figure 13: Euro Area Stock Market Index (EU50)   Regarding the global supply chain, military operations during the Russian invasion of Ukraine disrupted multiple sectors. In particular, Russia’s ban on exports and retaliatory ban on imports, including its refusal to allow foreign cargoes to pass through its waterways and airspace during the early phase of the invasion, disrupted the global supply chain.  Regarding global supply chain disruption, this article focuses on Russian oil and gas because they are the most important Russian products that affect not only Europe but also the world.  Figures 14 and 15 show a world map of the countries that exported oil and gas to Europe: the color of the country corresponds to the percentage share of the country’s exports (indicated below the Figure). In 2021, around a third of Europe’s energy came from gas (34%) and oil (31%), according to Al Jazeera’s data analysis from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy. Europe was the largest importer of natural gas in the world. Russia provided roughly 40% and 25% of the EU’s imported gas and oil before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Figure 16 shows, major gas importers from Russia in 2021 were European countries. Figure 14: EU oil import sources in 2021. Figure 15: EU natural gas import sources in 2021. Source: Eurostat  Figure 16: Major EU importers from Russian Gas in 2021.  However, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, more than 9,119 new economic sanctions have been imposed on Russia, making it the most sanctioned country in the world. At least 46 countries or territories, including all 27 EU nations, have imposed sanctions on Russia or pledged to adopt a combination of US and EU sanctions. The sanctions have strongly affected, resulting in a 58% decline in exports to Russia and an 86% drop in imports from Russia between the first quarter of 2022 and the third quarter of 2024 (see Figure 17). Figure 17: EU trade with Russia  Russia has blamed these sanctions for impeding routine maintenance on its Nord Stream I gas pipeline which is the single biggest gas pipeline between Russia and Western Europe. In response, Russia cut its gas exports to the EU by around 80% since the Russian invasion, resulting in higher gas price in Europe, as Figure 18 shows. As a result, many European countries had to rethink their energy mix rapidly. The ripple effects of higher natural gas prices were felt in Europe and around the world. One of the most immediate consequences of Russia’s cut in gas delivery and sanctions on Russia, as well as sanctions on Russian was a sharp increase in European demand for LNG imports: in the first eight months of 2022, net LNG imports in Europe rose by two-thirds (by 45 billion cubic meters compared with the same period a year earlier).  Russia’s pipeline gas share in EU imports dropped from over 40% in 2021 to about 8% in 2023. Russia accounted for less than 15% of total EU gas imports for pipeline gas and LNG combined. The drop was possible mainly thanks to a sharp increase in LNG imports and an overall reduction in gas consumption in the EU. Figure 18: Natural gas price in Europe, January 2021- December 2024  Figure 19 shows how gas supply to the EU changed between 2021 and 2023. Import from Russia declined from over 150 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2021 to less than 43 bcm. This was mainly compensated by a growing share of other partners. Import from US grew from 18.9 bcm in 2021 to 56.2 bcm in 2023. Import from Norway grew from 79.5 bcm in 2021 to 87.7 in 2023. Import from other partners increased from 41.6 bcm in 2021 to 62 bcm in 2023. Source: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-gas-supply/#0) Figure 19: Major EU import sources of Gas.  However, as Figure 20, shows the EU’s import from Russian gas increased in volume in 2024.  Figure 20: EU trade of natural gas with Russia     EU imports of Russian petroleum oil also dropped. Russia was the largest provider of petroleum oil to the EU in 2021. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a major diversion in the trade of petroleum oil took place. In the third quarter of 2024, the volume of petroleum oil in the EU imported from Russia was 7% of what it had been in the first quarter of 2021 (see Figure 21) while its value had dropped to 10% in the same period.  The EU’s share of petroleum oil imports from Russia dropped from 18% in the third quarter of 2022 to 2% in the third quarter of 2024 (see Figure 22). The shares of the United States (+5 pp), Kazakhstan (+4 pp), Norway (+3 pp), and Saudi Arabia (+2 pp) increased in this period. The U.S. and Norway became the EU’s no.1 and no.2 petroleum oil providers, respectively. Figure 21: EU trade of petroleum oil with Russia    Figure 22: EU’s leading petroleum oil providers  The EU’s de-Russification policy has successfully reduced the EU’s dependence on Russian energy. However, the EU’s de-Russification policy allowed Russian fossil fuels to flow into other regions. The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), a think-tank in Finland, compiles estimates of the monetary value of Russian fossil fuels procured by each country and region (Figure 23). Figures 23 & 24 show the countries that imported Russian coal, oil and gas since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. China has been no. 1 country that imported Russian fossil fuels most, followed by India, Turkey, and the EU. Asian countries such as Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, and Japan are among the major importers of Russian fossil fuels.  Figure 23: Value of Russian fossil fuels purchase (January 1, 2023 to January 24, 2024)  Figure 24: Largest importers of Russian fossil fuels (January 1, 2023 to February 16, 2025)  Moreover, according to Statista, value of fossil fuel exports from Russia from February 24, 2022 to January 27, 2025, by country and type is as follows as Figure 25 shows. China have been no. 1 country that imported Russian fossil fuels most, followed by India, Turkey, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and South Korea. Figure 25: value of fossil fuel exports from Russia from February 24, 2022 to January 27, 2025, by country and type.  However, Figures 23, 24, and 25 show some differences among major importers of Russian fossil fuels. China, India, and Turkey imported more Russian oil than gas or coal, while EU imported more Russian gas than oil or coal. Interestingly, South Korea imported more Russian coal than oil or gas. If we focus on Russian oil, we know that China and India’s imports of Russian oils significantly increased, as shown in Figures 26, 27, and 28. Since the EU imposed its embargo on Russian crude oil shipments, China purchased the most from Russia, at EUR 82.3 billion, followed by India and Türkiye, at EUR 47.0 billion and EUR 34.1 billion, respectively. The EU came in fourth, with oil and gas imports continuing mainly through pipelines to Eastern Europe. Notably, the oil-producing countries of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) purchased oil (crude oil and petroleum products) from Russia.  Figure 26: Russian Oil Exports, by country and region, 2021-2024. (Navy blue: EU, Blue: US & UK, Light green: Turkey, Green: China, Yellow: India, Orange: Middle Eastern nations) Since the advent of the Ukraine crisis, China and India have been increasing the amount of crude oil they imported from Russia. According to statistics compiled by China’s General Administration of Customs, as Figure 27 shows, monthly imports increased from 6.38 million tons in March 2022 to 10.54 million tons in August 2023. Annual imports in 2023 exceeded 100 million tons for the first time.  Figure 27: China’s monthly crude oil imports from Russia (2021 to 2023)   As Figure 28 shows, India, which historically imported little crude oil from Russia, rapidly increased its imports partly due to the close geographical distance since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. According to statistics compiled by India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry, its imports of Russian crude oil increased from March 2022 onward, with the total amount imported during 2022 exceeding 33 million tons. Crude oil imports from Russia grew into 2023, with monthly imports in May 2023 reaching a record-high level of 8.92 million tons. Annual crude oil imports from Russia in 2023 were expected to be at least 80 million tons. Figure 28: India’s monthly crude oil imports from Russia (January 2021 to November 2023)  In conclusion, after EU ban on Russia until January, 2025, the biggest buyers of Russia’s fossil fuels are as follows as Figure 29 shows: China has been no. 1 country that imported Russian coal, and crude oil the most, while the EU has been the largest importer of Russian Gas, both pipeline and LNG. Figure 29: Which country bought Russia’s fossil fuels after EU ban until January 2025 Still, although the EU has significantly reduced gas imports from Russia since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU still is no. 1 importer of Russian gas. However, China replaced EU as the biggest buyer of Russian crude oil. China is also the biggest buyer of Russian coal. Data from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2025 show how Russian fossil fuels have flowed by geography as Figure 30 shows. The flows of Russian energy to EU have significantly declined, while the supply of Russian energy to China, India, and Turkey has significantly increased.  Figure 30: The flows of Russian energy to regions    Despite the EU’s restrictions on Russian-sourced energy, Russia has maintained a substantial revenue level by selling it to other countries. As Figure 31 shows, Russian energy revenues have somewhat declined between January 2022 and January 2025. Russian energy export revenue was a little less than 750 million Euro in January 2025 compared to 1000 million Euro in January 2022 just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, considering that Russia’s total oil and gas revenues were 72.6 billion dollars in 2020, 122.9 billion in 2021, 169.5 billion in 2022, and 102.8 billion in 2023 and that 2022 was the best year for energy revenues in recent years, Russian energy revenues after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was not insufficient. This in turn has blunted the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed by the West.   Figure 31: Russian energy export revenue between 2022 and 2025.  V. Conclusion  This article examined the economic effects of the Ukraine war based on the argument of Ozili (2022). This article investigated four economic aspects (Inflation, economic growth, global banking, and global supply chain) on which the Ukraine war has had impacts. This article focused on Europe and the global supply chain because Russia and Ukraine were parts of Europe and because Russian energy has had a significant impact on Europea and all around the world.  This article showed that the Ukraine war significantly affected European inflation, economic growth, stock markets, and energy markets while the war had minimal impact on global banking. However, this article showed that the economic effects of the Ukraine war on inflation, economic growth, stock markets, and energy markets in Europe were short-term. The oil and gas prices in Europe skyrocketed in 2022 and then declined slowly and continuously. In addition, growth in Europe declined in 2022 & 2023 after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and energy prices jumped up. However, European countries grew moderately in 2024 and are expected to increase in 2025. The same thing happened to European stock markets. The FTSE 100 and Euro Area Stock Market Index (EU50) showed a noticeable decline in 2022, in particularly early 2022. However, both indices showed a noticeable rise after late 2022.  On the other hand, after Russia invaded Ukraine, European countries significantly reduced imports of Russian fossil fuels. The EU’s de-Russification policy allowed Russian fossil fuels to flow into other regions. After EU’s imposition of sanctions on Russian energy, Russian fossil fuels mainly went to Asian and Middle East markets, mainly to China, India, and Turkey. China has been no. 1 country that imported Russian fossil fuels the most, followed by India and Turkey. China, India, and Turkey imported more Russian oil than gas or coal, while South Korea have imported more Russian coal than oil or gas. References Addison, Paul. 1975. The Road to 1945: British Politics and the Second World War. London: Cape.Akarsu, Mahmut Zeki, and Orkideh Gharehgozli. 2024. “The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Waron European Union Currencies: A High-Frequency Analysis.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 353–376.Alden, Chris. 2023. “The International System in the Shadow of the Russian War in Ukraine.” LSE Public Policy Review 3 (1): 16, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.96.Allais, O., G. Fagherazzi, and J. Mink. 2021. “The Long-run Effects of War on Health: Evidence from World War II in France.” Social Science & Medicine 276: 113812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113812.Anderton, Charles H., and John R. Carter. 2001. “The Impact of War on Trade: An Interrupted Times-Series Study.” Journal of Peace Research 38 (4): 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343301038004003.Anicetti, Jonata. 2024. “EU Arms Collaboration and Procurement: The Impact of the War in Ukraine.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 443–466.Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.BBC. 2024. “What are the Sanctions on Russia and Have They Affected its Economy?” February 23,2024. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60125659.Beyerchen, Alan. 1992. “Clausewitz, Nonlinearity, and the Unpredictability of War.” International Security 17 (3): 59–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539130. POLICY STUDIES 277Biddle, Stephen D. 2022. “Ukraine and the Future of Offensive Maneuver.” War on the Rocks. November 22. https://warontherocks.com/2022/11/ukraine-and-the-future-of-offensive-maneuver/.Biddle, Stephen D. 2023. “Back in the Trenches: Why New Technology Hasn’t Revolutionized Warfare in Ukraine.” Foreign Affairs 102 (5): 153–164.Bilmes, Linda, and Joseph E. Stiglitz. 2006. The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Black, Jeremy. 2009. War: A Short History. London: Continuum.Boungou, Whelsy, and Alhonita Yatié. 2024. “Uncertainty, Stock and Commodity Prices Duringthe Ukraine-Russia War.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 336–352.Brands, Hal, ed. 2023. The New Makers of Modern Strategy: From the Ancient World to the DigitalAge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Brantly, Aaron F. 2024. “Forged in the Fires of War: The Rise of a New Ukrainian Identity.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 377–401.Chan, Steve. 1985. “The Impact of Defense Spending on Economic Performance: A Survey of Evidence and Problems.” Orbis 29 (2): 403–434.CIA Factbook. 2024. “Ukraine.”  https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ukraine/.Costalli, S., L. Moretti, and C. Pischedda. 2017. “The Economic Costs of Civil War: Synthetic Counterfactual Evidence and the Effects of Ethnic Fractionalization.” Journal of Peace Research 54 (1): 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316675200. Council of the European Union. 2024. “EU Enlargement Policy.” https://www.consilium. europa.eu/en/policies/enlarge ment /#Candidates.CPA (Centre for Preventive Action). 2024. “War in Ukraine.” Council on Foreign Relations, Global Conflict Tracker, February 9, 2024. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine.de Jong, Moniek. 2024. “Wind of Change: The Impact of REPower EU Policy Reforms on Gas Security.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 614–632.Dijkstra, Hyllke, Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Nicole Jenne, and Yf Reykers. 2023. “What We GotWrong: The War Against Ukraine and Security Studies.” Contemporary Security Policy 44(4): 494–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2261298.The Economist. 2023. “Russians Have Emigrated in Huge Numbers since the War in Ukraine.” August 23, 2023. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/08/23/russians-have-emigrated-in-huge-numbers-since-the-war-in-ukraine.The Economist. 2024. “How Many Soldiers Have Died in Ukraine?” February 24, 2024. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/02/24/how-many-russian-soldiers-have-died-in-ukraine.Égert, Balázs, and Christine de la Maisonneuve. 2024. “The Impact of the War on Human Capitaland Productivity in Ukraine.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 282–292.El Bilali, Hamid, and Tarek Ben Hassen. 2024. “Disrupted Harvests: How the Conflict in Ukraine Influence Global Food Systems – A Systematic Review.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 310–335.Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Glick, Reuven, and Taylor M. Alan. 2010. “Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption and the Economic Impact of War.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 92 (1): 102–127.Heathorn, Stephen. 2005. “The Mnemonic Turn in the Cultural Historiography of Britain’s GreatWar.” The Historical Journal 48 (4): 1103–1124. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0018246X 05004930.Hegarty, Stephanie. 2022. “How Can Ukraine Export its Harvest to the World?” BBC, May 22. Ichino, Andrea, and Rudolf Winter-Ebmer. 2004. “The Long-Run Educational Cost of World War II.” Journal of Labor Economics 22 (1): 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1086/380403.Iklé, Fred C. 1991. Every War Must End. New York: Columbia University Press.Ivanova, Anna, and Paul Theirs. 2024. “Conflict Disruptions of Epistemic Communities: Initial Lessons from the Impact of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 551–572.Jelínková, Marie, Michal Plaček, and František Ochrana. 2024. “The Arrival of Ukrainian Refugees as an Opportunity to Advance Migrant Integration Policy.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 507–531.Jervis, Robert. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Kang, Seonjou, and James Meernik. 2005. “Civil War Destruction and the Prospects for Economic Growth.” The Journal of Politics 67: 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00309.x.Kešeljević, Aleksandar, and Rok Spruk. 2023. Estimating the Effects of Syrian Civil War. Empirical Economics. Kizilova, Kseniya, and Pippa Norris. 2023. “Rally Around the Flag” Effects in the Russian–Ukrainian War.” European Political Science, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-023-00450-9.Koubi, Vally. 2005. “War and Economic Performance.” Journal of Peace Research 42: 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343305049667.Kurnyshova, Yuliia. 2024. “Chains of Insecurities: Constructing Ukraine’s Agency in Times of War.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 423–442.Landay, Jonathan. 2023. “U.S. Intelligence Assesses Ukraine War has Cost Russia 315,000 Casualties –Source.” Reuters, December 12, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-assesses-ukraine-war-has-cost-russia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12Levy, Jack. 1998. “The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace.” Annual Review of Political Science 1: 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.139.Levy, Jack S. 2014. War in the Modern Great Power System 1495–1975. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Levy, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. 2010. Causes of War. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Liadze, Iana, Corrado Macchiarelli, Paul Mortimer-Lee, and Patricia Sanchez Juanino. 2023.“Economic Costs of the Russia-Ukraine War.” The World Economy 46: 874–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13336.POLICY STUDIES 279Mader, Matthias. 2024. “Increased Support for Collective s in Times of Threat: European Public Opinion Before and After Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 402–422.Mahoney, J. 2015. “Process Tracing and Historical Explanation.” Security Studies 24 (2): 200–218.https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1036610.Mann, Michael. 1988. States, War & Capitalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Masters, Jonathan. 2023. “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.” Council on Foreign Relations, February 14, 2023. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia#chapter-title-0-4.Mosse, George L. 1994. Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mueller, John E. 1970. “Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson.” American Political Science Review 64 (1): 18–34.Murray, S. 2017. “The “Rally-‘Round-the-Flag” Phenomenon and the Diversionary Use of Force.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Nizhnikau, Ryhor, and Arkady Moshes. 2024. “The War in Ukraine, the EU’s Geopolitical Awakening and Implications for the “Contested Neighborhood.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4):489–506.Noll, Andreas. 2022. “What You Need to Know about the Ukraine-Russia Crisis.” DW, February 2, 2022, https://www.dw.com/en/how-the-ukraine-russia-crisis-reached-a-tipping-point/a-60802626.Nussbaum, Martha C. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.OHCHR (Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2022a. “Conflict-related Civilian Casualties in Ukraine.” January 27, 2022.OHCHR (Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2022b. “UN Commission Concludes that War Crimes Have Been Committed in Ukraine, Expresses Concern about Suffering of Civilians.” September 23, 2022, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/10/un-commission-concludes-war-crimes-have-been-committed-ukraine-expresses, last accessed27/2/2024.OHCHR (Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2024. “Two-Year Update. Protection of Civilians: Impact of Hostilities on Civilians since 24 February 2022.” https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/two-year-update-protection-civilians-impact-hostilities-civilians-24.pdf.Orenstein, M. A. 2023. “The European Union’s Transformation After Russia’s Attack on Ukraine. “Journal of European Integration” 45 (3): 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07036337.2023.2183393.Organski, A. F. K., and Jacek Kugler. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.O’Shea, Paul, and Sebastian Maslow. 2024. “Rethinking Change in Japan’s Security Policy: Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and Japan’s Response to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 653–676.Ozili, P.K., 2022, Global Economic Consequence of Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4064770(open in a new window) Pennisi di Floristella, Angela, and Xuechen Chen. 2024. “Strategic Narratives of Russia’s War in Ukraine: Perspectives from China.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 573–594.Rosen, Stephen Peter. 2005. War and Human Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Rosina, Matilde. 2024. “Migration and Soft Power: The EU’s Visa and Refugee Policy Response to the War in Ukraine.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 532–550.Russett, Bruce. 1970. What Price Vigilance? The Burdens of National Defense. New Haven: Yale University Press.Sakwa, Richard. 2014. Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Sarkees, Meredith R., and Frank Wayman. 2010. Resort to War 1816–2007. Washington: CQ Publishing.Sim, Li-Chen. 2024. “The Arab Gulf States in the Asian Energy Market: Is the Russia-Ukraine Wara Game Changer?” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 633–652.Slone, M., and S. Mann. 2016. “Effects of War, Terrorism and Armed Conflict on Young Children: A Systematic Review.” Child Psychiatry & Human Development 47 (6): 950–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0626-7.Stockemer, Daniel. 2023. “The Russia-Ukraine War: A Good Case Study for Students to Learn and Apply the Critical Juncture Framework.” Journal of Political Science Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2023.2286472.Strachan, Hew, ed. 2014. The Changing Character of Warfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sullivan, Becky. 2022. “Russia’s at War with Ukraine. Here’s How We Got Here.” NPR, February24. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/12/1080205477/history-ukraine-russia.Teremetskyi, Vladyslav, Volodymyr Valihura, Maryna Slatvinska, Valentyna Bryndak, and Inna Gutsul. 2024. “Tax Policy of Ukraine in Terms of Martial law.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 293–309.Thakkar, Chirayu. 2024. “Russia-Ukraine War, India, and US Grand Strategy: Punishing or Leveraging Neutrality?” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 595–613.Thompson, William R. 1993. “The Consequences of War.” International Interactions 19 (1-2): 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629308434822.Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, Capital and European States. AD 990–1992. Oxford: Blackwell.Trebesch, Christoph, Arianna Antezza, Katelyn Bushnell, Pietro Bomprezzi, Yelmurat Dyussimbinov, Andre Frank, Pascal Frank, et al. 2024. “The Ukraine Support Tracker: Which Countries Help Ukraine and How?” Kiel Working Paper 2218: 1–75.Vasquez, John A. 2009. The War Puzzle Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.Vilpišauskas, Ramūnas. 2024. “Gradually and Then Suddenly: The Effects of Russia’s Attacks on the Evolution of Cybersecurity Policy in Lithuania.” Policy Studies 45 (3-4): 467–488.von Clausewitz, Carl. 1976. On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Walker, Nigel. 2023a. “Conflict in Ukraine: A Timeline (2014-eve of 2022 Invasion).” House of Commons Library: Research Briefing, August 22, 2023. https://commonslibrary. parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9476/.Walker, Nigel. 2023b. “Conflict in Ukraine: A Timeline (Current Conflict, 2022-Present).” House of Commons Library: Research Briefing, October 18, 2023. https://commonslibrary. parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9476/.POLICY STUDIES 281

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Does the resolutely pro-Moscow approach of the new team in Washington mean that Russia is the big winner in the Ukrainian war at this stage? That Ukraine will have resisted for three years for (almost) nothing? That the United States will reap the long-term benefits of this strategic position in Europe? And will the EU be marginalized and reduced to a secondary role on its own continent? Visible success should not obscure the strategic setbacks of the self-proclaimed winners. Ever since the second Trump administration unilaterally opened direct and exclusive talks with Russia on the fate of Ukraine in Saudi Arabia on 18 February, MAGA communicators everywhere have heralded the end of the conflict. Even if a simple ceasefire now seems highly unlikely, the new American president proclaims that he will soon lead the "peace side" to victory, since he claims to be its leader. Who knows if he will have the courage to apply for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize himself? After three years of war, if the terms of negotiation announced last week are confirmed, we must return to the essential question of victory and the corollary question of defeat: who can claim the title of victor in this armed conflict? And, conversely, who is to be condemned to the status of the vanquished? The war of narratives has long since doubled and intensified the military war: European geopolitics is now confronted with a viral narrative that portrays Russia and the United States as winners to relegate Europeans and Ukrainians to the status of "losers". But if geopolitics feed on narratives, narratives - especially propaganda narratives - do not exhaust the strategic situation. As Machiavelli noted in Chapter XVII of The Prince: "The politician knows how to create illusions, but when it comes to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of an enemy, he must avoid relying solely on his eyes (which judge appearances) and instead use his hands (which feel reality). Let us be clear: at this stage of Ukraine debate, the reality of victory and the irreversibility of defeat are still matters of narrative. Let us plunge into reality. Ukraine, now vilified and resilient According to the Trumpian narrative broadcast everywhere today, Ukraine and its president must be treated as losers, even defeated. Everything about the behaviour of the American president and his team is aimed at hastening and consecrating the country's defeat: After having been asked to surrender its rare earth resources at rock-bottom prices, Ukraine, like the vanquished in the two world wars, is being excluded from the negotiating table on its own destiny by its self-appointed protector; its legitimate government is being openly denigrated and its legitimacy undermined; it is even being threatened with "war sanctions" to compensate the United States for the financial effort it has made to support it in the face of an illegal invasion. Beneath the strategic shift and the military evasion lies a continuity: for the United States, Ukraine is not a participant but a stake. Ukraine's symbolic defeat - that of history - is obviously compounded by its real setbacks. In addition to the 80,000 to 120,000 soldiers killed on the battlefield, the country of forty-three million people has lost more than six million refugees and millions of citizens who have been incorporated into the Russian Federation. And more than 20% of its territory is now in danger of officially falling under Russian sovereignty. Deprived by the Trump administration of the prospect of NATO membership, it risks a demilitarization comparable to that imposed on Germany after the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. At a time when symbolic defeat seems destined to go hand in hand with human and material misery, Ukraine can only save itself from despair by remembering that it has manifested its national identity - so often denied - with arms in hand. The narrative is that of a failed, slaughtered state, while the strategic reality is that of a state that has repelled the total occupation of its territory. The Ukrainians may not be the winners, but they are not "losers" reduced to an international minority. The United States, strategically discredited Can Washington, for its part, claim the trophy of strategic victory in Ukraine? Is the second Trump administration not determining the destiny of the old continent just as the Biden administration claimed to do, but in a different direction? Can't the United States now, more than ever, claim to be Europe's arbiter? Nothing is less certain: Ukraine's policies over the past decade (the Obama, Trump 1, and Biden administrations) have indeed demonstrated the United States' refusal to play a leadership role in Europe. They encouraged Ukraine's inflexibility towards Russia but failed to prevent it from annexing Crimea in 2014, escalating tensions under the first Trump administration, and then invading in 2022. It then supported it for almost three years, only to disown it in a political transition. Washington has behaved not as a leader but as an arsonist in Ukraine, declaring on the one hand that Kyiv should be free to pursue its alliance policy but ruling out any concrete prospect of NATO membership on the other. One of the main lessons of Washington's Ukraine policy is that being one of the United States' "allies" is a risky business: not only does it leave you at the mercy of sudden shifts in alliances, but it also exposes you to constant admonishment and vilification on the international stage. The Europeans have paid the price: criticized by the Biden administration for their pacifism at the start of the war, they are now being criticized, along with the Ukrainians, for failing to bring the war to an end. The United States has made no major strategic gains in this war: it has undermined its own network of allies, damaged its largest military alliance in the world, NATO, and failed to dislodge its strategic regional rival, Russia. Trump's communication tricks will not change this: the United States has suffered undeniable structural strategic setbacks in this conflict. The long Ukrainian crisis, from the Orange Revolution to the current talks, via Euromaidan and the annexation of Crimea, is the opposite of a show of strength for US international strategy: it is a financially costly and strategically ruinous fiasco. The contamination effect on Asian alliances is likely to be massive and rapid: who will want to rely on the American umbrella against the People's Republic of China? Russia, permanently "de-Europeanized What about Russia? Is it the big winner in all this? After all, hasn't it received the promise of Ukraine's non-membership of NATO, its demilitarization, and its transformation into a rump state between Russian and EU territory? In addition to the 20% of Ukrainian territory (population and natural resources) it has seized, it wants to enjoy the prestige of being treated as a strategic peer by the United States. But is this a victory, even a Pyrrhic one? In historical terms, Moscow has lost in just a few years all the investment it made in its dialogue with the West between 1990 and 2000. It has deliberately squandered its relations with its natural economic outlet: Europe. Russia has been permanently de-Europeanized and will pay the price of this divorce in the form of lower growth potential (loss of markets, investors, assets) and in the form of a substantial defence effort that it will have to maintain in the long term throughout its western part, unless political forces favorable to it come to power simultaneously in the main EU countries, which seems unlikely. Again, we must measure this success with our hands, not our eyes: Russia has not achieved all its war aims, far from it. It did not make Ukraine disappear, and it did not make NATO retreat. Will this strategic hiatus - deliberately pursued by Russia in this war - be compensated for by a successful "pivot to Asia"? At best, the People's Republic of China could give Russia the role of "brilliant second" that Prussia gave Austria-Hungary. It is not so much a Pyrrhic victory as a strategic gamble that China has taken, the payoff of which is neither certain nor substantial. The EU faces up to its responsibilities Despite the condescending statements of the second Trump administration, can the EU claim to have made any strategic gains in this war? Again, the gains are meagre and the costs high: it has made great strides in terms of its capabilities but has not moved into a war economy; it is supporting the Ukrainian state at arm's length but has not forced its way to the negotiating table. If it proves reactive and creative, it can, in the medium term, take advantage of the gaping holes left by Russia and the United States on the European scene. As a result, it can no longer attract states to its side without the threat of arms. The Union must therefore quickly resume its enlargement efforts in order not to leave any space on its doorstep. On the other hand, the United States has openly renounced its status as Europe's protector: it wants to be its ideological dynamo, its industrial and technological supplier, and its strategic dominator. If Europe does not want to be among the losers in the Ukrainian war, it must therefore resolutely take full responsibility for its own defence. The time has come.